Unwed Catholic Teacher CannedFollow

The problem as I see it is that in this case, the federal law preventing discrimantion (loss of job in this case) on the basis of sex or pregnancy is in direct violation of the Constitutional Right of religious practice.

If this were not a place of education specifically supported by and with the aim of teaching the beliefs of a particular religion, it would be cut and dried. You can't fire someone for getting pregnant. However, in this case you have a situation where the laws of the church involved specifically prohibit pre-marital sex, and especially out of wedlock births. The church and school can make a case that the state forcing them to allow a teacher who's violated the tenents of their faith to remain and teach students at their school violates their constitutional right to practice their religion. I don't think it's a stretch to say that having a single pregnant teacher undermines the moral message the school is trying to teach. Certainly, it's a bit beyond the grain of reasonableness to require that the school continue to pay someone to undermine their religious values.


My understanding is that the first ammendment to the constitution holds more weight then a generic federal law. The school has a valid argument. Should be an interesting case.

Hehe. Yeah. But, as I stated, a Constitutional Right generally superceeds a federal law. If we accept that premise that the parents who paid money to send their children to this school did so with the assumption that the were spending that money in order to have their children taught in an environment in keeping with their religious beliefs, then it's quite reasonable for that school to be able to enforce hiring/firing practices in keeping with that belief system.


There are other examples where practices that would normally be discriminatory are legal in situations where that discrimination is appropriate to that particular workplace. I think we got into a discussion about this a while ago when we were talking about the Wal-mart employment requirements thing. In that case, the issue was over whether or not a fitness requirement at Wal-Mart constituted age/sex discrimination. While there were lots of arguments for and against, the argument wasn't that such a thing is illegal in all cases, but only in cases where those requirements can't be shown to be relevant to the job for which the employee was hired. So, if you were hired to be a cashier, your employment should only be based on your ability to work a cash register and handle customers. It should not be based on whether or not you can lift a 100lb bag, or run the mile in under 8 minutes. However, if your job description *did* require those things, then it would be legal to hire/fire people based on their ability to meet those requirements.


If we are to accept the criteria stated in that thread, then does that not apply to this case? It would be discrimination to fire this woman from a post office job for example. But as a Catholic School teacher? One can easily argue that the requirements of her job do mean that she must act as a moral example to the students she's teaching, and so therefore being single and pregnant with no intention to marry is legitimate ground for termination.


I think it'll be an interesting case. I suspect though that it will be found that in this case, the job description does merit the discrimination. I'm sure there'll be some angry folks as a result though.


Heh. Just to toss out a side issue though. What if this was an openly gay teacher? Could they fire him/her? Would there be as much outcry if they did? Would there be more? What, if any, is the difference between those two cases?

Religion doesn't act as carte blanche to violate the law. Even less so in this case where their "exercising of religion" directly violates someone else's protection under the law.

I'm not allowed to keep a giant pile of rotting dead sheep in my backyard as an altar because it produces a health hazard to my neighbors. I'm not allowed to set my house on fire as a religious rite because it produces a fire hazard to my neighbors and violates pollution standards. I can't lock my children in a small cage and refuse them food or water for weeks as a purification ritual because it violates their legal protections as minors as afforded by the state. I can't stone women to death under Old Testament law because there's laws protecting them from assault and murder.

All fairly extreme examples but it serves my point: You can't use your religion as a shield to violate my legal protections.

Edited, Thu Nov 24 11:24:57 2005 by Jophiel

The ladyfriend and I got into a disagreement about this last night. She said the woman should have gracefully stepped down and left it at that. I said that, while I wouldn't blame her for stepping down, I could see her point in suing. If the school is in violation of the law, they should be legally rebuked and made to get into line. If she chooses to step down quietly and go away -- while it would save her trouble -- it also allows the school to go on violating people's protections. All assuming there is indeed a violation occuring.

That's not to say she's not suing because she sees Catholic School = Deep pockets; I have no idea. But some good may come of it despite her motives.