Coach/Teacher Fired for Unmarried Pregnancy

I think the writing was on the wall for this sort of thing after the Supreme Court ruling. It seems religions are allowed to discriminate against a protected status.

 

In Germany similar cases happen form time to time with teachers working for instance for Catholic schools. Since divorce or unmarried pregnancies run counter to Catholic teaching it is assumed that they cannot credibly teach the lesson to pupils while living in contradiction to it. We call such employers, which are usually closely connected to religious institutions, 'tendency businesses'.

It isn't discrimination since it is well known that this sort of employer has such rules, and people contract with them in the knowledge what they are getting into. I think it is tough and somewhat unfair (and that imo goes particularly for divorce, which may not even be the person's own fault), but it is also legal. It would be illegal with any ordinary company (for whom the private life of their employees is none of their beeswax).

 

And she would get damages for having signed a discriminatory contract.

 

Look, if you want to work for an explicitly religious institution, you need to understand that you will be expected to follow that religion's code of conduct. That code of conduct isn't a secret. If you are not prepared to follow that code, then go work for another institution.

 

Damn right, you wouldn't take a bacon sandwich into a muslim school, would you?

 

I would agree with the whole "she knew what she was getting into by working at a religious school" thing except with double digit unemployment any institution basically has a gun to the candidate's head. Requiring a standard that is beyond the norm for the occupation is basically coercion.

In a similar argument, I am a research chemist. Most employers have a standard non-disclosure agreement to sign for researchers which states basically I can't take specific formulations I've worked on to another employer -- it may even state I cannot work in the same industry for two years after leaving (a rare requirement but reasonable in some industries). This is standard in research. If instead the employer puts a form in front of me which states I cannot work in the industry for ten years (which is unreasonable) and tells me I must sign it for employment this can be considered coercion and the agreement, even though I signed it, may not be enforcable. There have been several cases like this is the US.

I think the woman would have a case in the requirement (can't get pregnant if you're not married) is unreasonable.

 

"Should be" doesn't necesarily mean "are". In this situation, firing the woman is as far as I can tell legally permissible, but not necessarily moral. Especially if you want to make such a big thing about the value of life and all that - firing a woman just as she'll be giving birth and having no spouse to support her doesn't sound all that moral to me either. Ah well, good thing the US has such a strong welfare net to provide for those cast off in the name of morality.

It is ironic that she probably wouldn't have had this problem if she had gone for a hidden abortion. Makes you wonder what kind of morality those moral clauses urge - "If you can't live it, fake it" ?

 

This would be blatantly illegal in Finland no matter what sort of institution you happen to have. Firing someone who is pregnant is difficult because the employer has to prove reasons beyond the pregnancy for the termination of the employment contract. Which is good since pregnant women usually mean high costs with next to no benefits for a company and it would be extremely convenient for them to fire all women who get pregnant. Being a religious institution is not a valid reason to deviate from law.

 

It would be extremely convenient for businesses if they could fire pregnant women without consequences. I'm unwilling to give them such a right. It's a net benefit for the society as a whole that pregnancy won't be punishable with the loss of career and financial stability. It's also an important issue for gender equality. I don't buy for a minute in to the argument that women would somehow be better off if the protected status was removed.

I'm not sure I agree with the sentence above but then I like to read through the entire court cases before I make hasty conclusions on the basis of a two sentence summary. I'm sure the courts of Denmark are sensible enough to conclude whether or not the pregnancy was a factor in the firing or not.

 

They didn't fire her for being pregnant. That's a red herring. They fired her for having sex out of wedlock, which is what the pregnancy is evidence of. Forgiveness is one thing, but standards are still necessary. You cannot have someone preaching a moral standard of behaviour and obviously not following it. Teachers have to lead by example -- you guys would be all over these people if they didn't "practice what they preach".

Now, they should give her a generous severance package and be supportive in other ways, but to continue having her as an instructor at the institution is ridiculous.

As a teacher, in all ways you have to set an example. You must be on time to classes if you expect to have any credibility when demanding students be on time. You have to shut off your own cell phone if you want them to take you seriously when you tell them to do the same. You have to return assignments in a reasonable period of time if you want them to meet your deadlines. There are many more examples.

This isn't rocket science, people. I know many of you are not fond of organized religion and Christianity in particular, but if you want to have people respect your beliefs even if they disagree with them, you have to accord them that same respect.

 

The forgiveness 'contradiction' is a little silly too. By that standard, no christian organization would ever hold anybody responsible for anything (including murder, rape, etc.), as they would always be forgiving them. IIRC, the concept of forgiveness in christianity does not equal never being held accountable anyway. Theoretically, this gal would be fired (consequences) and forgiven for betraying their trust. Being forgiven would not automatically mean she gets her job back.

 

I agree with Gaear's last post. Forgiveness doesn't equate to non-punishment. You take your medicine and restart.

 

Where is it in the article that she "preaches" abstinence? It would be interesting to see which commandments are a part of the contract and which are not. Firing her for having sex out of wedlock is also a red herring.

 

My assumption is that the school, being Christian, has Christian values infused in all areas of instruction. It's not just limited to Religion classes. By instructing there, she was expected to teach and promulgate those values, one of which I am assuming to be chastity before marriage and fidelity after marriage. By obviously not following that value, she rendered herself a hypocrite and an ineffective representative of the school as a whole. The contract she signed had a morals clause that laid out very clearly the expectations the school had of her. She violated those expectations knowingly.

Now the school, of course, needs to tread a fine line in that if they are too hard on her, they risk being seen as unforgiving. But if I paid my hard earned money to the school assuming my kid would be educated in a moral, principles based environment, I would not want someone who clearly held differing moral positions setting a crappy example for my kid. This is not suppressing or infringing on her rights in any way -- I have no problems with her teaching my kids in a public school. But this is different.

If the out of wedlock thing is also a red herring, then I am curious, T2Bruno, as to why you think they fired her.