Posted on 09/30/2005 12:59:20 AM PDT by Crackingham
A case is set to begin in Birmingham federal court next month for a woman who is suing a Christian school that fired her after administrators learned she was unmarried and pregnant. Tesana Lewis filed suit against Covenant Classical School of Trace Crossings, saying she was unfairly fired. The school contends her unwed pregnancy went against the values and religious principles taught there.
Lewis' suit says she was hired at the school on December 6, 2003, where she was to help teach 12- to 20-month- olds. She was fired four days later.
Lawyers for the private religious school in Hoover say Lewis was fired because she was pregnant and unwed, which goes against the school's Christian teachings.
Her attorney states that whether she was married or not, the school fired Lewis because she was pregnant, a violation of the federal Title Seven, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, race and religion. School lawyers contend the school is private and is exempt from the statute.
I think it is illegal to discriminate against pregnant women but perfectly legal to discriminate against unmarried people.
While I have no problem with the teacher being unwed and pregnant, I side with the school in this case. Private organizations should be able to hire and fire anyone they damn well please for any reason, or no reason at all.
Was she required to sign a statement saying she agreed with the beliefs of the school? If she did then BYE BYE!
Seems no different than the Boy Scout case precedent that said private organizations don't have to employ people that act contrary to their values.
Title VII makes it "an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's . . . sex." 42 U.S.C. SS 2000e-2(a) (1994). In 1978, Congress enacted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), amending the definitional provision of Title VII to clarify that discrimination "on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions" is sex discrimination under Title VII.Apparently private firms and non-profits are covered if they have 15 or more employees. And interesting case is Lang v. Star Herald. The court ruled the woman could be legally fired for being pregant because they treated pregnancy the same as other short term disabilities. I think school is not gonna win this one unless they have no short term disability policy. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=8th&navby=case&no=962251p
my high school would expel students that were pregnant, even students that they found out had abortions, because it went against the religious beliefs of the school and it was a policy everyone went in agreeing with. Private schools should be that, private and should be allowed to have their own moral rules (its not like the government enforces high moral standards)
Article snippet #2:
"Lawyers for the private religious school in Hoover say Lewis was fired because she was pregnant and unwed, which goes against the school's Christian teachings."
Fired 4 days after she was hired as a babysitter? And she hires a lawyer to contest the firing?
Who's bankrolling her? This has 'set-up' written all over it.
"Fired 4 days after she was hired as a babysitter? And she hires a lawyer to contest the firing?
Who's bankrolling her? This has 'set-up' written all over it. "
That's an interesting point. Aren't marital status and pregnancy two of things you cannot ask about during the interview process? But they would have found out when she filled out her healthcare forms.
Well at least this time it wasn't one of her students that got her pregnant.
??????
I'm supposing that she was req'd to take a physical for the job. Don't know, but I'd think that being screened for things like hepatitis, AIDS...would be SOP for people who are hired to care for babies. Since I doubt that any healthcare insurance benefit of the job would cover prenatal care and delivery of an existing pre-hire condition, pregnancy screening might also be part of the physical?
That would make perfect sense.
Ok with me as long as she knew the policy going in, and the same standard applies to unwed fathers.
Hmmm...she was hired and five days later, she was fired for being pregnant....
and she just happens to have a nice lawyer nearby...
Kaching kaching kaching---
.
The school can't show any weakness or enter into any talks of compromise because to do so will undermine its position as an exemplary, private Christian organization that writes its own rules. I would like to think that it's(the school) is going to prevail but with liberal federal judges sitting on the bench, it might have to go to SCOTUS.
I would agree. Any private organization should be treated like a club... able to choose people (or not) discreetly for its own reasons.
I want to see a branch of the NAACP be forced to hire a white sepratist! Or the ACLU be forced to hire Ann Coulter!
Mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.