Private school fired unwed pregnant woman

[CrAz3D]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/22/pregnantteacher.suit.ap/index.html

Legal or not?

[Arta]

Probably legal, but completely stupid.

[Explicit]

It's very stupid, and that school needs to get over it.

[CrAz3D]

Stupid, yeah, but its their right to have their school put forth a certain image

[Forged]

That is a really bad idea though.  This women is haveing a baby, a life form that requires her care for it, and they take away her source of income?

[CrAz3D]

I think they're making her accept the consequences to her actions.

[Explicit]

I think they're making her accept the consequences to her actions.

Just because her belief structure isn't the same as the school's?  If that were the case, the school should have saved this woman all the trouble and not have hired her to begin with.  She'd have established herself elsewhere.

[Forged]

I think they're making her accept the consequences to her actions.

And the babie,  as a christian you would think they would forgive and forget.  She could have simplly aborted the baby and they would have never known, however after making a mistake she decided not to make another one, and look at where she is now; an unwed jobless mother to be...

However from the looks of it she is going to win her case.

http://www.sidley.com/news/pub.asp?PubID=134716252001

Enforcing employment contracts that prohibit extra-marital sex

Some religious institutions require their employees to agree — as a condition of employment — to abstain from sexual relations outside of marriage. While such policies can be enforced without violating federal discrimination laws, religious institutions can avoid unnecessary risks by focusing on the misconduct itself, and not on the resulting pregnancy, when responding to instances of non-compliance.

As amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 ("PDA"), Title VII prohibits employment discrimination "on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or [any] related medical condition." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). Because Title VII's so-called "religious exemption" extends only to discrimination on the basis of religion, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e)-1(a) & 2000(e)-2(e), a religious institution that terminates an unwed female employee because she is pregnant can be held liable for discriminating on the basis of pregnancy. That is true, moreover, even if the discrimination is linked to a religious prohibition on extra-marital sex. Consequently, a religious institution should avoid taking any adverse action against an employee who is pregnant — even if that employee is suspected to have violated a policy prohibiting extra-marital sex — unless the institution is prepared to show that the employee's misconduct, and not her pregnancy, was the cause of that action.

Two recent cases from the Sixth Circuit illustrate the legal significance of this distinction. In Cline v. Catholic Diocese of Toledo, 206 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2000), an unmarried school teacher who had agreed to abstain from extra-marital sex was terminated after she became pregnant. See id. at 656. The teacher filed suit under Title VII, alleging that the school had engaged in unlawful pregnancy discrimination. Reversing the district court's order granting summary judgment to the diocese, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff had presented "sufficient evidence to call into question [the defendant's] proffered reason for her [dismissal]," and was therefore "entitle[d] . . . to make her case before a trier of fact." Id. at 669. Specifically, the panel pointed to evidence suggesting (1) that the plaintiff's "pregnancy alone had signaled [school officials to the fact] that she engaged in premarital sex," (2) "that the school does not . . . inquire as to whether male teachers engage in premarital sex," and (3) that the school "enforces its policy solely by observing the pregnancy of its female teachers." Id. at 667. According to the panel, this evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to the legitimacy of the school's explanation for its decision, and therefore precluded summary judgment. Id. at 668.

When confronted with a similar lawsuit, the defendant in Boyd v. Harding Academy of Memphis, Inc., 88 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 1996), avoided liability by demonstrating that its efforts to enforce its extra-marital sex policy were gender-neutral, and focused exclusively on the underlying misconduct. Affirming the district court's judgment in favor of the defendant, the Sixth Circuit found it significant that the defendant had "provided uncontroverted evidence at trial that [the defendant] had terminated at least four individuals, both male and female, who had engaged in extramarital sexual relationships that did not result in pregnancy." Id. at 412-413.

In light of these two cases, religious institutions should exercise caution in drafting, implementing, and enforcing policies prohibiting employees from engaging in extra-marital sex. The policies themselves should focus on the sexual misconduct, not on its consequences. Similarly, they should be enforced without regard to gender or pregnancy. See Cline, 199 F.3d at 860 (suggesting that "gender-neutral enforcement of [a] premarital sex policy" does not violate Title VII).

To prepare for possible litigation, religious institutions that have such policies should consider keeping records of their efforts to enforce them. Such records might include, for example, statistics on the number of (1) married employees who have remained employed during and after pregnancies, (2) male employees who have been terminated for violating the policy, and (3) non-pregnant female employees who have been terminated for violating the policy. By focusing on employee misconduct (rather than pregnancy), religious institutions will minimize their vulnerability to federal discrimination lawsuits.

Nevertheless, because state discrimination and employment laws vary, a policy that may be enforced freely in one state may be unlawful in another. Consequently, institutions should independently evaluate their extra-marital sex policies, as well as the procedures they use to enforce those policies, under state law.

Finally, when faced with a lawsuit under state or federal law, religious institutions should consider whether the plaintiff can be considered a minister for purposes of the "ministerial exemption." See e.g., EEOC v. Catholic University of America, 83 F.3d 455, 461 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Where it applies, the ministerial exemption gives religious entities a defense in civil rights lawsuits involving the selection of ministers. See Sidley Austin Brown & Wood Religious Institutions Law Alert, Recent Decisions Show That Scope of Ministerial Exemption Remains Uncertain (Feb. 23, 2000).

This Alert is published by the Religious Institutions Practice Group of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood. Jeff Berman, a member of that group, has extensive experience litigating cases similar to those described in this Alert. See Arriaga v. Loma Linda University, 10 Cal.App.4th 1556 (Cal.App.1993). For additional information about Sidley Austin Brown & Wood's religious institutions practice, or about the subject of this Alert, please contact Jeffrey A. Berman or Amy Lally of the firm's Los Angeles office, or Gene Schaerr or Mike Lee of the firm's Washington, D.C. office.

[Adron]

I think they're making her accept the consequences to her actions.

For what we know, she may have been raped. Is being raped a sin? Would having an abortion be better?

[iago]

I think they're making her accept the consequences to her actions.

For what we know, she may have been raped. Is being raped a sin? Would having an abortion be better?

Yes, as far as I know, being raped is a sin :-P

[CrAz3D]

To my knowledge she wasn't.  I'm sure the story would've mentioned that.  I'm sure the church would support an abortion because of rape

[Adron]

To my knowledge she wasn't.  I'm sure the story would've mentioned that.  I'm sure the church would support an abortion because of rape

The article also does not mention her living together with a man without being married... She might have been raped without telling her employer, I could see someone not wanting to tell everyone in the world that she had been raped.

And, what if she did not want an abortion? What if she wanted to keep her baby? Would that be sinful?

[iago]

To my knowledge she wasn't.  I'm sure the story would've mentioned that.  I'm sure the church would support an abortion because of rape

Would they?  Could you find a source on that?

[CrAz3D]

"Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child's, who should not suffer death for others' sins."

Wow, crazy Catholics.  As I've read most churches would support abortion due to rape, not them Catholics though, eeks.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

I think this is illegal.