We don't know if it was on the application or if it was an agreement in and of itself.
And I think you're off on the law. lol.
Me, and the EEOC:
2. Are there any exceptions to who is covered by Title VII’s religion provisions?
Yes. While Title VII’s jurisdictional rules apply to all religious discrimination claims under the statute, see EEOC Compliance Manual, “Threshold Issues,” www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/threshold.html, specially-defined “religious organizations” and “religious educational institutions” are exempt from certain religious discrimination provisions, and a “ministerial exception” bars Title VII claims by employees who serve in clergy roles.
Religious Organization Exception: Under Title VII, religious organizations are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion. The exception applies only to those institutions whose “purpose and character are primarily religious.” Factors to consider that would indicate whether an entity is religious include: whether its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose; whether its day-to-day operations are religious (e.g., are the services the entity performs, the product it produces, or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion?); whether it is not-for-profit; and whether it affiliated with, or supported by, a church or other religious organization.
This exception is not limited to religious activities of the organization. However, it only allows religious organizations to prefer to employ individuals who share their religion. The exception does not allow religious organizations otherwise to discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. Thus, a religious organization is not permitted to engage in racially discriminatory hiring by asserting that a tenet of its religious beliefs is not associating with people of other races.
So, if a religious tenet of your religion was not marrying somebody of a different race, that wouldn't be enforceable because the Title VII religion exemption wouldn't apply to you.
Ditto here.. if a religious tenet is not treating your ADA-covered disability, that's not enforceable because the Title VII religion exemption doesn't apply to you.
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.
Because it's not private if she's blabbing about it. If she didn't mention it, she still would have engaged in a behavior they don't condone. In the opinion of the church, fine, that's something she will have on her conscience. But since she blabbed about it, they have the authority to act.
It's like claiming someone else violated your HIPAA rights, but knowing that, wait, actually you told your neighbor, SIL, cousin, and paper boy about your medical procedure. You only enjoy the expectation of privacy if you, well, value your privacy and keep your employer out of it.
Ditto here.. if a religious tenet is not treating your ADA-covered disability, that's not enforceable because the Title VII religion exemption doesn't apply to you.
Thanks for that. That's why I asked about the precedent of IF being defined as a disability. Because it seems that's what her lawyers are hanging their hats on. I just wondered if they were likely to win.
Again, can we go back to how it's OK for priests to rape boys? Is that OK in the Catholic faith? It can't be - sex for pleasure and not procreation. Why weren't they all fired?
I know that's not the issue here, but the CC is very lax when they want to be, so in this case I think the ignorance and slippery slope argument is a good one.
Whatever standards she signed up to should have been clear and uniformly applied across the board. The Catholic Church is not particularly good at that.
Little. Moxie, this is not the same and you know it. We get it, you dislike them and that is fine, but let's stay on point. Eta-they are no longer lax, FYI. Not since 02 so at least speak fully here'.
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.
Because it's not private if she's blabbing about it. If she didn't mention it, she still would have engaged in a behavior they don't condone. In the opinion of the church, fine, that's something she will have on her conscience. But since she blabbed about it, they have the authority to act.
It's like claiming someone else violated your HIPAA rights, but knowing that, wait, actually you told your neighbor, SIL, cousin, and paper boy about your medical procedure. You only enjoy the expectation of privacy if you, well, value your privacy and keep your employer out of it.
But that's my point. Having medical procedure X shouldn't get you fired anywhere, because it's a private personal matter. You might as well say it's ok to fire someone if they say they are gay, but they can work there so long as they NEVER mention or let on that they are gay.
Its not a matter of personal info getting out or not- it's a matter of your employer using that info against you.
The Supreme Court defined "ministers" very loosely in this matter, saying they wanted to give discretion. Religious teachers are specifically included -- and if an institution decided that this woman was a religious teacher, or if she had any role in religious ceremony or instruction at all, she could be exempt under this rule.
Anybody know what she teaches?
Because if she teaches math or history or English, they can't go claiming, willy-nilly that she falls into the ministerial exemption.
Honestly, given the proliferation of religious schools in this country, this issue has been decided a million times over.
If you're a teacher and you teach a religious subject, you're within the ministerial exception. If you teach a non-religious subject you're out.
The Supreme Court defined "ministers" very loosely in this matter, saying they wanted to give discretion. Religious teachers are specifically included -- and if an institution decided that this woman was a religious teacher, or if she had any role in religious ceremony or instruction at all, she could be exempt under this rule.
Anybody know what she teaches?
Because if she teaches math or history or English, they can't go claiming, willy-nilly that she falls into the ministerial exemption.
Honestly, given the proliferation of religious schools in this country, this issue has been decided a million times over.
If you're a teacher and you teach a religious subject, you're within the ministerial exception. If you teach a non-religious subject you're out.
Do we have text of that section? b/c Catholicism is pretty UN-VAGUE about IVF. lol.
I mean, they are unvague about a lot of things, but as someone else mentioned, unless they are firing everyone who doesn't have a good excuse for missing weekly mass, then they are creating an environment where the rules have at least a bit of interpretation to them. It's not like she mentioned it and everyone was instantly WTF YOU ARE GONNA GET FIRED. The bottom-line is that they are cherry picking when they enforce what and to what extent.
Also, folks keep referencing "must have a knowledge of, and a respect for, the Catholic faith and a commitment to Christian living." Can someone link to what "THE RULES" are? I'm not asking to be snarky - I'm genuinely curious as to what the major tenets are, since some are, I thought, widely considered to be "optional" or anachronistic (meat on Friday, for instance). I agree that if it was specifically spelled out then she has some responsibility here, but I'm really thinking that those "thou shalt nots" that are so obvious to Catholics simply may not be so obvious to non-Catholics. And while yes, her application has a lot of language about being a good Catholic, it lacks a great deal of detail.
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
Also, folks keep referencing "must have a knowledge of, and a respect for, the Catholic faith and a commitment to Christian living." Can someone link to what "THE RULES" are? I'm not asking to be snarky - I'm genuinely curious as to what the major tenets are, since some are, I thought, widely considered to be "optional" or anachronistic (meat on Friday, for instance). I agree that if it was specifically spelled out then she has some responsibility here, but I'm really thinking that those "thou shalt nots" that are so obvious to Catholics simply may not be so obvious to non-Catholics. And while yes, her application has a lot of language about being a good Catholic, it lacks a great deal of detail.
The Catechism is a great place to start (and anyone working at a Catholic School has it at his/her fingertips):
Because it's not private if she's blabbing about it. If she didn't mention it, she still would have engaged in a behavior they don't condone. In the opinion of the church, fine, that's something she will have on her conscience. But since she blabbed about it, they have the authority to act.
It's like claiming someone else violated your HIPAA rights, but knowing that, wait, actually you told your neighbor, SIL, cousin, and paper boy about your medical procedure. You only enjoy the expectation of privacy if you, well, value your privacy and keep your employer out of it.
But that's my point. Having medical procedure X shouldn't get you fired anywhere, because it's a private personal matter. You might as well say it's ok to fire someone if they say they are gay, but they can work there so long as they NEVER mention or let on that they are gay.
Its not a matter of personal info getting out or not- it's a matter of your employer using that info against you.
That was the exact basis of Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Which I would never defend in a million years, but that was the federal government's policy.
I also believe that firing someone for coming out at work might be acceptable in states which don't define LGBT as a protected class.
Post by copzgirl1171 on Sept 18, 2012 17:40:10 GMT -5
I know that as an employer we are not allowed to ask/no employee has to tell us the reason for a sick absence covered by a doctors excuse or not. Now this may be different in other working environments IDK. When I was in the medical field 16 years ago we never put the reason for the sick time or appt on a doctors excuse. I would be mortified if my boss would ask me or demand of me the reason for my medical absence.
I wanted to toss this out there before I forgot and now back to finishing the thread.
Thanks 2V - i'm looking for language about IVF now and it's not terribly easy.
Here is what I've found:
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82
2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83
"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84
"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.
**so, nothing that would plainly state that IVF is wrong, unless you produce embryos to discard them.
and:
2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."170
2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord's Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.
Again, maybe it's just that I'm not used to reading this stuff, but nothing here says "IVF is wrong." It basically says that if you can't conceive you should consider adoption instead, but doesn't say that IVF is a grave sin. Is that meant to be implicit in "the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents""?
It wouldn't occur to me to think that IVF was immoral according to catholics, or at least not so immoral that it was fireable. What are the stats on contraception? Don't something like 90% of American catholics use forbidden by the church contraception?
I'm late to the convo, but same here, and I was raised Catholic! Attended church up til about 2007.
I sure as hell don't tell my employer the down-and-dirty reasons I'm requesting time off every time I request time off. If I have an appointment with the gyno and it will take half a day, I just say "doctor's appointment" if anything at all. I may be wrong, but I don't think anything could become a complication in IVF which would result in her needing more time off than discussed (such as an infection like that you could get with a wisdom tooth extraction). If so, then I suppose she could mention a minor medical procedure and advise them of the possibility that she'd be out more than 1-2 days, or whatever she needed.
Then you tell them after you get pregnant in order to plan for your leave and don't make reference to how it happened.
I'm not really interested in getting involved in this thread, but I thought I'd comment on this. There are actually quite a few potential complications with IVF that could mean more time off work.
Thanks 2V - i'm looking for language about IVF now and it's not terribly easy.
Here is what I've found:
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82
2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83
"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84
"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.
**so, nothing that would plainly state that IVF is wrong, unless you produce embryos to discard them.
and:
2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."170
2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord's Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.
Again, maybe it's just that I'm not used to reading this stuff, but nothing here says "IVF is wrong." It basically says that if you can't conceive you should consider adoption instead, but doesn't say that IVF is a grave sin. Is that meant to be implicit in "the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents""?
You missed paragraph 2377:
2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act.....
I sure as hell don't tell my employer the down-and-dirty reasons I'm requesting time off every time I request time off. If I have an appointment with the gyno and it will take half a day, I just say "doctor's appointment" if anything at all. I may be wrong, but I don't think anything could become a complication in IVF which would result in her needing more time off than discussed (such as an infection like that you could get with a wisdom tooth extraction). If so, then I suppose she could mention a minor medical procedure and advise them of the possibility that she'd be out more than 1-2 days, or whatever she needed.
Then you tell them after you get pregnant in order to plan for your leave and don't make reference to how it happened.
I'm not really interested in getting involved in this thread, but I thought I'd comment on this. There are actually quite a few potential complications with IVF that could mean more time off work.
I'm happy to chime in - as someone who had sky high estrogen levels as a result of IVF and suffered from ovarian hyperstimulation, you can darn well have complications that land you off of work, or even in the hospital with kidney failure. The egg retrieval requires anesthesia so any complications there can arise, as can infection since it is surgery.
Anyway, the point IMO is not that she *could* have hid it - of course she could have. It is that she did not think she needed to at all. Where we differ in opinion is over whether she should have known the details of Catholic doctrine with enough detail to know that this was a fireable offense. My opinion is that she did not know - and that it is reasonable to imagine her not knowing. Look above in the catechism that 2V referenced - no where in that enromously long document (I excerpted maybe 1% of it) does it appear to say "IVF is an absolute violation of Catholic teachings).
I'm not really interested in getting involved in this thread, but I thought I'd comment on this. There are actually quite a few potential complications with IVF that could mean more time off work.
I'm happy to chime in - as someone who had sky high estrogen levels as a result of IVF and suffered from ovarian hyperstimulation, you can darn well have complications that land you off of work, or even in the hospital with kidney failure. The egg retrieval requires anesthesia so any complications there can arise, as can infection since it is surgery.
Anyway, the point IMO is not that she *could* have hid it - of course she could have. It is that she did not think she needed to at all. Where we differ in opinion is over whether she should have known the details of Catholic doctrine with enough detail to know that this was a fireable offense. My opinion is that she did not know - and that it is reasonable to imagine her not knowing. Look above in the catechism that 2V referenced - no where in that enromously long document (I excerpted maybe 1% of it) does it appear to say "IVF is an absolute violation of Catholic teachings).
You know epphd, I can give her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't know. However, it sounds like there are teacher in-services about Catholic doctrine and I would suspect that these sorts of topics would have been touched upon. Or maybe I should say, should have been touched upon...
But then again you don't even have priests teaching Catholic doctrine at Mass....
Post by lyssbobiss, Command, B613 on Sept 18, 2012 19:03:46 GMT -5
It makes me sad that there are people in this thread who assume that people who take a job teaching at a catholic institution where they love all other aspects of their jobs should be relegated to a lifetime of being barren. Can you imagine being around kids all day long, loving them, loving where you work and what you do, and being completely unable to be proactive about it? So, to be able to care for kids, you need your income, yet you cannot earn your income if you have artificial means of conception? That's a shitty predicament to be in.
"This prick is asking for someone here to bring him to task Somebody give me some dirt on this vacuous mass so we can at last unmask him I'll pull the trigger on it, someone load the gun and cock it While we were all watching, he got Washington in his pocket."
I'm not really interested in getting involved in this thread, but I thought I'd comment on this. There are actually quite a few potential complications with IVF that could mean more time off work.
I'm happy to chime in - as someone who had sky high estrogen levels as a result of IVF and suffered from ovarian hyperstimulation, you can darn well have complications that land you off of work, or even in the hospital with kidney failure. The egg retrieval requires anesthesia so any complications there can arise, as can infection since it is surgery.
I hear ya. I had severe OHSS, high risk of ovarian torsion, and kidney stones which were apparently a result of the procedure. That was for my second IVF and I was put on bed rest for a couple weeks and needed several aspirations. I know a lot of women who go through even worse.
It makes me sad that there are people in this thread who assume that people who take a job teaching at a catholic institution where they love all other aspects of their jobs should be relegated to a lifetime of being barren. Can you imagine being around kids all day long, loving them, loving where you work and what you do, and being completely unable to be proactive about it? So, to be able to care for kids, you need your income, yet you cannot earn your income if you have artificial means of conception? That's a shitty predicament to be in.
I think it's probably fair to assume that she didn't think she'd be in the position of needing IVF when she started the job, if I understood correctly and she was there for several years before this. I feel really sad for her and other couples in this position.
Thanks 2V - i did not see that. I looked under "conception" but did not see that one linked. Off to look again to see if I'm just blind - whichis possible!
OK, 2V, I know this is nitpicky - but someone needs to do a better job with that index! why is 2377 not linked under conception, but instead under "love of husband and wife"?
Anyway, it's hard to find for a person who has not grown up with the doctrines drilled in from birth.
I'm happy to chime in - as someone who had sky high estrogen levels as a result of IVF and suffered from ovarian hyperstimulation, you can darn well have complications that land you off of work, or even in the hospital with kidney failure. The egg retrieval requires anesthesia so any complications there can arise, as can infection since it is surgery.
Anyway, the point IMO is not that she *could* have hid it - of course she could have. It is that she did not think she needed to at all. Where we differ in opinion is over whether she should have known the details of Catholic doctrine with enough detail to know that this was a fireable offense. My opinion is that she did not know - and that it is reasonable to imagine her not knowing. Look above in the catechism that 2V referenced - no where in that enromously long document (I excerpted maybe 1% of it) does it appear to say "IVF is an absolute violation of Catholic teachings).
You know epphd, I can give her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't know. However, it sounds like there are teacher in-services about Catholic doctrine and I would suspect that these sorts of topics would have been touched upon. Or maybe I should say, should have been touched upon...
But then again you don't even have priests teaching Catholic doctrine at Mass....
Her EMPLOYERS had to go research Catholic doctrine to figure out that this was a fireable offense. How is it reasonable that she, a non-Catholic, should know?
But that's my point. Having medical procedure X shouldn't get you fired anywhere, because it's a private personal matter. You might as well say it's ok to fire someone if they say they are gay, but they can work there so long as they NEVER mention or let on that they are gay.
Its not a matter of personal info getting out or not- it's a matter of your employer using that info against you.
That was the exact basis of Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Which I would never defend in a million years, but that was the federal government's policy.
I also believe that firing someone for coming out at work might be acceptable in states which don't define LGBT as a protected class.
I lived in that dioces for 6 years. It's notoriously nuts. The bishop is always in a fight with the head of nd and he dies it by going super Conservative, This is one reason why I turned down a job teaching at a local catholic school there. They wanted me to sign a contract like that and I was not comfortable with it. At least the school was VeRY upfront about the contract and walked me through what it entails.