I'm dying over the posts in here. SHe never had to take the job/sign the agreement in the first place. I mean it's a ....Catholic School which made it VERY CLEAR what was expected from a teacher at their school.
If I took a teaching job at a Mormon School or a Jewish School, I would follow their rules if that was what was expected of me. At the very least I'd keep my mouth shut if I wasn't following them.
Oh wait, I probably wouldn't work there in the first place. You know, because I disagree with their rules.
Or, if you really needed the job, you'd at least do some damn research on what these rules are before blabbing your personal business to your coworkers and supervisor, right?
And yet, the first time around, it was all cheers and blessings... so apparently her employers weren't keyed in to that particular tenet of Catholicism, either.
So... if you don't get pulled over by a cop because he doesn't know you broke that particular law, but then DO get pulled over later by a cop who recognizes it... does that mean you shouldn't get a ticket?
FFS. You don't see the facts in this particular case as leading to a conclusion that Catholics could have different interpretations of this issue? And if its open to interpretation, why is one interpretation suddenly so much better than the other?
Hell, the same people had a different view of it at a different time!
so, how was she supposed to know which version she was going to be held to?
She knew what was expected of her as a teacher in that diocese when she applied.
"abide by Catholic morals and values" is pretty broad, though, whereas Humanae Vitae is pretty specific. Is the non-Catholic employee expected to know / read such documents?
•Teachers “must have a knowledge of, and a respect for, the Catholic faith and a commitment to Christian living. It is highly recommended that whenever possible, a Catholic in good standing, endowed with a Catholic philosophy, be hired to work in a Catholic school.”
She knew what was expected of her as a teacher in that diocese when she applied.
"abide by Catholic morals and values" is pretty broad, though, whereas Humanae Vitae is pretty specific. Is the non-Catholic employee expected to know / read such documents?
If you look at the link 2V put up, it specifically states that there will be religious education in-services for non-Catholic employees.
Or, if you really needed the job, you'd at least do some damn research on what these rules are before blabbing your personal business to your coworkers and supervisor, right?
I can't believe you're on the opposite side of this. It seems... wrong, somehow.
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
It sounds to me like she kept telling people and telling people until FINALLY she got the firing she was looking for.
You do realize just how stupid this sounds? It's like saying that the Obama birth announcement was planted in the Hawaii paper, despite the fact that he was born in Kenya, just in the off chance he would run for POTUS.
The "firing she was looking for"? Because being fired for cause is a walk in the park, especially because it makes you ineligible for unemployment compensation.
So, she took the job, she worked it for x number of years, abiding by some amorphous morality clause the whole time. She did a round of IVF, being honest with her employer about where she was going when she needed time off. All fine. But she repeats her behavior, doing exactly the same thing she did before, and it's the firing she's been looking for all along???!!?!
I worked with a number of people in similar situations and, let me tell you, being fired for cause is not exactly something people set out to do.
That's not an apt comparison at all. It would be more as if Obama himself pointed out something potentially sketchy about his own birth certificate, over and over, until someone took notice, and then got all outraged that people were questioning his eligibility for the presidency.
That's true, but I don't think the agreement her employer required is at all unusual for Catholic-run organizations.
That still doesn't make it valid.
My assumption was that since these agreements are so prevalent, the Church probably has case law on its side. I may be mistaken, but I would think that agreement would be legally enforceable, or at least assumed to be.
Post by mominatrix on Sept 18, 2012 16:38:22 GMT -5
A couple other things:
Just because something is listed in the application paperwork doesn't make it part of one's employment contract.
and... I'm not entirely sure that this element of the contract, if there was one, is legal to begin with. I'd say that, unless she was teaching Religion or in a religious capacity in the school (pastor, say) that her employer has no right to impose a religious standard on her. That's religious discrimination, and it's as illegal as the Disability discrimination she's claiming.
Religious employers are exempted from the law when it comes to religious employees (so, you can't claim religious discrimination if you want to be a Catholic Rabbi), but non-religious employees can be any religion at all (so, Catholic schools can't refuse to hire a Jewish math teacher because he's Jewish). Therefore, requiring all employees to abide by your religious tenets, even if their employment is non-religious, violates Title VII.
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
Or, if you really needed the job, you'd at least do some damn research on what these rules are before blabbing your personal business to your coworkers and supervisor, right?
I can't believe you're on the opposite side of this. It seems... wrong, somehow.
Do I think these should be the rules? No, of course not. I agree with the person who said that religious institutions need to be either a business or a religion and not do this bullshit of trying to be both. But the reality is, we as a country DO allow them to pull these shenanigans, and that is an issue. And normally I'd be on the side of whoever was against the religion.
But here? This doesn't smell right at all. A woman who worked in a Catholic school, who agreed to abide by Catholic teachings as an example for her students, decided to not only do exactly the opposite, but to make sure the school administrators knew that she was doing the opposite. Either she didn't ever bother to look into what all she had agreed to AND she's a ridiculous work oversharer, or she was pushing some sort of agenda. In both of those cases, I can't side with her.
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
Just because something is listed in the application paperwork doesn't make it part of one's employment contract.
and... I'm not entirely sure that this element of the contract, if there was one, is legal to begin with. I'd say that, unless she was teaching Religion or in a religious capacity in the school (pastor, say) that her employer has no right to impose a religious standard on her. That's religious discrimination, and it's as illegal as the Disability discrimination she's claiming.
Religious employers are exempted from the law when it comes to religious employees (so, you can't claim religious discrimination if you want to be a Catholic Rabbi), but non-religious employees can be any religion at all (so, Catholic schools can't refuse to hire a Jewish math teacher because he's Jewish). Therefore, requiring all employees to abide by your religious tenets, even if their employment is non-religious, violates Title VII.
Statement from the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend
The Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend is saddened by the lawsuit filed against it by a former teacher at one of its grade schools. The claims made against the Diocese in the lawsuit allege matters of sex, pregnancy and disability discrimination. The Diocese denies any such discrimination occurred. Rather, the Diocese views the core issue raised in this lawsuit as a challenge to the Diocese’s right, as a religious employer, to make religious based decisions consistent with its religious standards on an impartial basis.
The Catholic Church has a deep pastoral concern for husbands and wives struggling with infertility. The Church promotes treatment of infertility through means that respect the right to life, the unity of marriage, and procreation brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act. There are other infertility treatments, such as in vitro fertilization, which are not morally licit according to Catholic teaching. The Church teaches that every individual embryo has the right to life. The process of in vitro fertilization very frequently involves the deliberate destruction of embryos or the freezing of embryos, which the Church holds to be incompatible with the respect owed to human life. Furthermore, the Church teaches that it is morally unacceptable to “disassociate procreation from the integrally personal context of the conjugal act” and insists that procreation not be reduced to mere reproduction.
The Diocese has clear policies requiring that teachers in its schools must, as a condition of employment, have a knowledge of and respect for the Catholic faith, and abide by the tenets of the Catholic Church as those tenets apply to that person. The Diocese requires that its teachers serve as moral exemplars. Those requirements, and others, are expressly incorporated into Diocesan teacher contracts.
The Diocese does not intend to comment on the specific allegations raised in the lawsuit that was filed against it. However, Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades believes it important that the Faithful understand that the Diocese does not take its obligations as an employer lightly. At the same time, the Diocese understands its obligation to uphold Church teaching and defends its freedom to do so. Bishop Rhoades asks the Faithful to join with him in prayer for the swift and just resolution of this matter – - one that affirms the Diocese’s ability to exercise its lawful rights consistent with Church teachings.
Last Edit: Sept 18, 2012 16:46:29 GMT -5 by pedanticwench
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
Is there any precedent that has affirmed IF as a disability as defined under the ADA?
Off the top of my head... the first case that found AIDS to be an ADA disability did so, in no small part, because the Court found reproduction to be a major life activity, and HIV to be a major impediment to reproduction....
What about someone in the U.S. on a temporary visa or green card? They agree to abide by the laws of the United States upon entering. But there's SO MUCH INTERPRETATION to the laws!
Say Joe Visa gets pulled over for drinking and driving. Well, it's not illegal in Joe's country. He had no idea it was illegal in this one, despite the fact that he agreed to abide by the laws when he signed his visa application. And really, under the influence is so open to interpretation. His BAC was such that it was just barely over one state's limit, but under several others'.
The U.S. deports or otherwise disciplines Joe. He cries foul and files suit. Should he win? Does the US have the right to impose their laws on him when he's not a US citizen?
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
Post by hopecounts on Sept 18, 2012 16:53:28 GMT -5
As a public school teacher my Mom's contract included a moral turpitude clause, that was enforced in certain circumstances for teachers who were acting inappropriately (affairs, etc) Provided the abide by catholic tenents clause is in the contract how is that different?
Post by ringstrue on Sept 18, 2012 16:55:03 GMT -5
I just don't get how an employer can fire you over something done in a doctors office or hospital that's completely private- regardless of your blabbing about it afterwards. Fire her for speaking out publicly in favor of IVF- that I get. Then she is "teaching against" the Catholic teachings. I just don't see how an employer has the right to reach that far into your life. They can write up and have you sign whateverTF they want that doesn't mean they have the right to.