Teacher fired for using IVF

[2vermont]

Sept 19, 2012 15:53:07 GMT -5 @irishbride said:

Sept 19, 2012 15:49:57 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

i think mom is trying to be less abortion debate here and more how these rules are inherently sexist

How do you make it not sexist, other than getting rid of their beliefs? I mean, unless the dad admits to being part of the process, they can't prove it.

I know I had a friend deal with this at a catholic high school. She got pregnant and was kicked out. The dad refused to admit it so he stayed. He finally took a test a year later an paternity was proved so he was kicked out too. But before that, they had no proof. They did for the girl. It sucks for women, but the proof is much easier to obtain.

I'm actually not following the bolded.

[Deleted]

Sept 19, 2012 15:55:07 GMT -5 pedanticwench said:

How do you make it not sexist, other than getting rid of their beliefs?

Yup.

Lol well if it were that simple, no religion would exist. I know that would make many on ere happy but that's not going to happen. So let's try to tall about things that might actually happen

[2vermont]

Sept 19, 2012 15:56:19 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

ignoring this specific case where she talked about it, how could they prove a woman had IVF in the first place?

even better, i would hope they fire husbands of women who have IVF since masturbation is a no-no and a step needed most times in the cases of IVF. But have you EVER heard of a man being fired for his role in IVF?

They can't. And normally they would never know about it. I think that's why this case is different. It came to light. Likewise, they don't know who is using BCP or not.

I think you have a point with IVF; however, has there ever been an IVF case prior to this one that involved a male teacher as well? Show me such a case.

[2vermont]

Sept 19, 2012 15:57:22 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

OR have schools fired men who donate sperm?

Again, I'm thinking they wouldn't know unless it was offered up.

[msmerymac]

Sept 19, 2012 15:01:20 GMT -5 pedanticwench said:

I don't care who I offend but a crucifix in a math class is creepy.

All the classrooms have crucifixes. When you have homeroom in the chemistry lab (as I did senior year), you do morning prayer in the chemistry lab so... crucifix next to the American flag it is.

[Deleted]

Sept 19, 2012 16:02:40 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

i am willing to bet there is no such case as a man being fired b/c he physically has no evidence of the act, as opposed to the woman. so he can't be found out. and that is why 'trix is upset.

Ok. I guess I don't get sexism then. If something just happens to be easier to prove in one sex than the other, than its sexist? Everything has to be equally easy to prove in. Oth in order to be ok?

Look, I think the church has issues with sexism. I just don't get the logic being argued in this particular instance.

[2vermont]

Sept 19, 2012 16:02:40 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

i am willing to bet there is no such case as a man being fired b/c he physically has no evidence of the act, as opposed to the woman. so he can't be found out. and that is why 'trix is upset.

Again, if it came to light that a male teacher's wife had done IVF, then yes we would then know that he had to have participated in it (am I right about that or is it possible for a woman to use someone else's sperm?)

But the key phrase is "if it came to light". I'm thinking that there hasn't been a ismilar situation to see how it was handled. Ia lso think men are less likely to discuss this in the workplace.

[msmerymac]

Sept 19, 2012 15:08:38 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

I just want to say that this is hitting me personally, and here's why.

Years ago I was involved with a case that dealt with a secular-subject Catholic school teacher, who was fired for being unmarried and pregnant. Everybody knew that the babydaddy also worked for the school, in a secular role and he suffered absolutely no consequence. Pissed me off then, and still pisses me off now.

I heard all the arguments about her having to abide by Catholic doctrine and being a role model and all that. Yet none of it seemed to apply to the "man", mostly because there was no outward evidence of his transgression.

Not OK. Not at all.
These kinds of rules are almost entirely coming down on female teachers. The reality is that a male teacher whose wife was undergoing IVF would be nowhere near fired over it.

Oh, I completely agree with this.

[Deleted]

But again me, that's because it's much harder to prove with a man unless he admits to it. His do you prove it unless he stands up and says it was him or is forced to take a paternity test?

[2vermont]

Sept 19, 2012 16:09:56 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

yes, you can do IVF without the sperm of your husband, just to clear that up

So again there is no way to know for sure.

[Deleted]

Momi: as a lawyer, would that man have had cause to sue if he had been fired since there was no proof? I have no clue, hence why I'm asking.

[2vermont]

Sept 19, 2012 16:07:09 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

not that it is easier to prove but in most cases it is the woman that is only punished and not the man.

as in: show me an equal number of cases where a man was fired for something (affair, sperm donation, role in IVF) pregnancy related as women were.

but if you find, and i am willing to bet is the norm, that most of the time these cases are about a woman being fired, than i am ok calling sexist

I'm also willing ot bet that a large percentage of teachers are .....women. In fact, I just found the stats....86 % female and 12% male. The rest are clergy/religious, etc.

[msmerymac]

Sept 19, 2012 16:04:59 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Sept 19, 2012 15:47:24 GMT -5 2vermont said:

What does that have to do with your pushing abortion talk?

Because turning this into a "discussion" about abortion and the Church's stance on it is going to be oh-so-productive.

Please.

it's not about an abortion debate or the church's position on abortion. The point is that not all sinners are being fired. The honest and possibly ignorant sinner is punished. Worse, she is being fired for creating life-- the very thing that is supposed to be sacred.

No, using IVF as a means of reproduction isn't sacred to Catholics. That's the entire point. The LIFE is, of course, but the process isn't excused because of it.

Also, read any contract. Just because an entity doesn't act upon every single violation of a contract doesn't mean they waive the right in the future. They don't HAVE to fire everyone who sins. Maybe they only fire people engaging in certain sins, or maybe if someone already has 2 strikes against them, this pushes it over the edge and gives the school cause.

[2vermont]

Sept 19, 2012 16:19:05 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Sept 19, 2012 16:04:59 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

it's not about an abortion debate or the church's position on abortion. The point is that not all sinners are being fired. The honest and possibly ignorant sinner is punished. Worse, she is being fired for creating life-- the very thing that is supposed to be sacred.

No, using IVF as a means of reproduction isn't sacred to Catholics. That's the entire point. The LIFE is, of course, but the process isn't excused because of it.

Also, read any contract. Just because an entity doesn't act upon every single violation of a contract doesn't mean they waive the right in the future. They don't HAVE to fire everyone who sins. Maybe they only fire people engaging in certain sins, or maybe if someone already has 2 strikes against them, this pushes it over the edge and gives the school cause.

The bolded is what I wonder about the teacher in the OP.

[2vermont]

Sept 19, 2012 16:21:07 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

I agree that there is likely a discrepancy between the treatment of men and women as a result of these rules; but fail to see why it's relevant to the subject at hand. Except that people love to talk shit about the Catholic church in general. lol.

QFT.

And with that, I'm out.

[crazytalk]

Sept 19, 2012 16:10:47 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Sept 19, 2012 16:09:56 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

yes, you can do IVF without the sperm of your husband, just to clear that up

So again there is no way to know for sure.

So you're saying that if a man were all "my wife and I are doing IVF, pray for us!" at school, and they tried to fire him, and he came back with "oh no, it was donor sperm," then they shouldn't fire him?

[Deleted]

Sept 19, 2012 18:18:02 GMT -5 crazytalk said:

Sept 19, 2012 16:10:47 GMT -5 2vermont said:

So again there is no way to know for sure.

So you're saying that if a man were all "my wife and I are doing IVF, pray for us!" at school, and they tried to fire him, and he came back with "oh no, it was donor sperm," then they shouldn't fire him?

I'm waiting to hear from the lawyers as to if the guy could sue. If he says he didn't break any rules, and they have no proof otherwise,mould he likely win?

[mominatrix]

Sept 19, 2012 16:21:07 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

I agree that there is likely a discrepancy between the treatment of men and women as a result of these rules; but fail to see why it's relevant to the subject at hand. Except that people love to talk shit about the Catholic church in general. lol.

Right.
Whether there's gender discrimination going on when we're discussing a case of somebody fired for doing IVF is completely off-topic.

[mominatrix]

Sept 19, 2012 16:19:05 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Sept 19, 2012 16:04:59 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

it's not about an abortion debate or the church's position on abortion. The point is that not all sinners are being fired. The honest and possibly ignorant sinner is punished. Worse, she is being fired for creating life-- the very thing that is supposed to be sacred.

No, using IVF as a means of reproduction isn't sacred to Catholics. That's the entire point. The LIFE is, of course, but the process isn't excused because of it.

Also, read any contract. Just because an entity doesn't act upon every single violation of a contract doesn't mean they waive the right in the future. They don't HAVE to fire everyone who sins. Maybe they only fire people engaging in certain sins, or maybe if someone already has 2 strikes against them, this pushes it over the edge and gives the school cause.

they don't have to fire everybody who sins.
but, if they're going to exist as a secular employer, they can't only fire female, or Black, or Hispanic sinners.

that'd be against the law.

[mominatrix]

Sept 19, 2012 18:22:46 GMT -5 @irishbride said:

Sept 19, 2012 18:18:02 GMT -5 crazytalk said:

So you're saying that if a man were all "my wife and I are doing IVF, pray for us!" at school, and they tried to fire him, and he came back with "oh no, it was donor sperm," then they shouldn't fire him?

I'm waiting to hear from the lawyers as to if the guy could sue. If he says he didn't break any rules, and they have no proof otherwise,mould he likely win?

they all have to be held to the same standard.

so, if the employer just takes the man's word for it ("I didn't have sex with that woman."), and that ends it, then if an unmarried woman, obviously pregnant, says she didn't have sex or IVF to get that way ("It was divine!") then that has to end it for her, too.

The reality, though, is far different.

In the situation I was involved in, literally everybody knew and admitted they knew that they were "together", but they simply didn't ask the man if he was the child's father.

Not OK.

[Deleted]

Yeah in your story it's not ok.

In mine, I don't know what the school could have done. The girl admitted, and was obviously pregnant. The boy denied it. They eventually proved it, but a year later and only because the court forced a paternity test for child support reasons. I think that is more common than not even asking the guy.

[mominatrix]

Sept 19, 2012 18:38:23 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Sept 19, 2012 18:31:11 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

they don't have to fire everybody who sins.
but, if they're going to exist as a secular employer, they can't only fire female, or Black, or Hispanic sinners.

that'd be against the law.

Luckily, as religious organization, they are exempt from following many laws.

As I've been trying to say... only their religious employees. Their secular employees are entitled to the same civil rights protections as everybody else.

*pounds head against wall*

[Deleted]

I know they spent a lot of time on it, but I snt know if they can require their students to take paternity tests, nor can they require the mom to give consent that her child be tested. Again not a lawyer.

It was a lot of drama though because they originally were going to kick both out, then the boys parents sued since he denied it was his. A year later the mystery was solved, but it was insane.

[mominatrix]

Sept 19, 2012 18:39:32 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Sept 19, 2012 18:37:59 GMT -5 @irishbride said:

Yeah in your story it's not ok.

In mine, I don't know what the school could have done. The girl admitted, and was obviously pregnant. The boy denied it. They eventually proved it, but a year later and only because the court forced a paternity test for child support reasons. I think that is more common than not even asking the guy.

Why didn't the school require a paternity test? Shouldn't they want to find all the sinners involved so that they can be fair?

because he was somebody who'd been there for a while, and everybody liked?

or he was married to somebody else and they wanted to avoid a scandal?

or he was in administration and they wanted to keep it hush?

or they didn't want the expense of a court battle to make him give up his DNA?

or he denied it and it was "his word against hers", and, well , we know she sinned, but we only have her word that he did?

or "we don't act on rumors, just facts"?

or... or... or...
there's a million reasons why it's just easier to act against the pregnant single mom than it is to strike out against the person who was as involved in getting her that way.

(as is the case in all parts of society... which is why we see things like high schools expelling pregnant girls, while their partners are free to continue their studies.)

[Deleted]

Also, not an hr expert, but are you allowd to ask an employee about family planning? So if either one had not brought it up, can you ask?

I'm thinking about Momis example. If the woman has told people, Can the employer legally then ask the man?

[Deleted]

Um no Momi. That's not what happened in this case. I get you've he'd bad experiences with ate Church, but in this case, the church fought had against the suit for a year and won the right to kick him out too. ANd he was a student. Not an employee. 16 years old.

[mominatrix]

Sept 19, 2012 18:47:49 GMT -5 @irishbride said:

Um no Momi. That's not what happened in this case. I get you've he'd bad experiences with ate Church, but in this case, the church fought had against the suit for a year and won the right to kick him out too. ANd he was a student. Not an employee. 16 years old.

that's bad.

I'm just saying there are a million reasons why it's easier to just fire the single female pregnant woman, instead of seeking out a man who may or may not have impregnated a woman, whether she was an employee or not.

[epphd]

Well at least we're tackling the tough issues in education. Think of the children! :/

That's what makes this so weird - a sizeable percentage of teachers and administrators in Catholic schools are non-Catholic. As are a sizeable percentage of students. I get that there was a contract (that may or may not have spelled out specific codes of conduct). I get that the teacher worked there willingly. I get that there may have been some other reason the school wanted to fire her (but isn't it an at-will state? Why not just fire her for whatever other reason?)

I get all that. What I don't get is how this makes an ounce of difference in the ability of the teacher to do her job and EDUCATE Catholic and non-Catholic kids alike. Unless the school planned to broadcast that Mrs. Herx created a zombie baby in the lab, WHO would have known? Whose sensibilities are being protected here? It seems as though the Church is going out of its way to find such moral outrage when really, no one had to be the wiser. They could have easily said "you did not know this, but IVF is morally offensive to Catholics. Please do not discuss it further and please keep your private life private." If anything, it creates a firestorm for their student body that never had to erupt.

[teflep]

My guess is if she told so many about her private health matters, they probably thought she'd talk in class. Not sure but yeah, at will state...just don't renew her. Most private schools don't have tenure as they do in public schools.

[iammalcolmx]

Recap please? Why is this 9 pages?