Posted on 12/31/2012 10:32:41 AM PST by marshmallow
DAYTON, Ohio — An unmarried Catholic school teacher who said she was fired after telling her principal that she was pregnant is suing the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati.
It's the second lawsuit that's been filed in the last two years against archdiocese over the firing of a pregnant teacher.
Kathleen Quinlan, who taught first grade at Ascension Catholic School in Kettering in suburban Dayton, said she was told to resign or she would be fired, on the same day she told the school's principal in December 2011 that she was expecting. She said she had offered to take a behind-the-scenes job until she gave birth.
Quinlan, of Dayton, who later had twin girls, said in her lawsuit that she was given three days to clear out her classroom.
A termination letter said she was fired for violating a section of her employment contract that requires employees to "comply with and act consistently in accordance with the stated philosophy and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church," according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court .
Her attorney said that, "as a non-ministerial employee, (she) was not subject to a 'morality clause.'"
(Excerpt) Read more at therepublic.com ...
The fact that she is pregnant is NOT why she was fired. Plenty of pregnant women work for the Catholic Schools & Churches. She was fired because she broke the terms of her contract. The pregnancy, coupled with the fact that she IS NOT MARRIED, is simply proof positive that she broke her contract. A contract that she was obliged to follow or suffer the consequences.
Now if she worked for a private NON-Religious School, OR she worked for a denomination that had no moral teachings regarding premarital sex, ahe might have a case. She doesn't.
The Roman Catholic Church regards ALL its’ employees as Ministerial Employees. Her contract is worded as such RIGHT IN THE MORALS CLAUSE. She is a person held as a roll model to children, young children whose parents pay thousands of dollars a year to have their children educated ion Catholic Doctrine. An unwed mother is a direct slap in the face of the parents, the students and the Church.
The Church includes a morals clause in its’ contracts FOR JUST THIS TYPE OF SITUATION.
The case law is relevant BECAUSE she works for a religious institution. That makes her a Ministerial Employee, ACCORDING TO OPINION OF THE CHURCH, whose is the only one that matters in this instance.
If you do not like the ruling take it up with Judge Roberts and the other 8 black robed dictators.
‘How did they know she had been immoral?’
She admitted as much when she told them she was pregnant. The tennats of the Catholic Church state that premarital sex is immoral. She signed a contract stating that she would live her life in accordance with Catholic Doctrine. Unless she claims Immaculate Conception, She did the nasty.
What are you, Brain dead?
I feel sorry that she did what she did, but SHE CHOSE to have sex outside of marriage. In most instances that would have no effect on her employment status. However, she is employed at a religious institution that requires their employees to refrain from immoral activity. They are the SOLE deciders of what is and is NOT moral for their members and employees.
So she got pregnant and they fired her for being pregnant. It’s against federal law to fire someone for being pregnant, no matter the circumstances.
Have you found that case where a woman was allowed to be fired for being pregnant yet? I’m waiting patiently.
As for your arguments, they are wrong. The pregnancy is incidental, it is not the basis for the termination. The contract specifics are the basis. The Morality Clause in particular.
Pregnancy is not the reason she was fired. Moral turpitude is the reason. She violated the terms of her contract as per the Morality Clause. The pregnancy is a result of the immoral behavior. Not the cause of her dismissal
I understand that you believe that she would not have been fired had she not become pregnant. You may actually be correct. She may have ‘gotten away with it’ as she may have avoided pregnancy in the past even while violating her Morals Clause by engaging in previous acts of premarital sex. That is still irrelevant to the case. The pregnancy is simply irrefutable evidence of her moral transgression. There is no more proof needed to show that she violated the terms of the Morality Clause.
It is about a women who VOLUNTARILY accepted employment under contract with a specific expectation of morality and KNOWINGLY risked said employment by acting against that clause. Period. The structure of this is no different than being fired for any other written company policy.
The pregnancy was the catalyst for the firing. Even the school admitted that.
In matters infringing upon the exercise of religious beliefs, church can indeed trump federal law.
The subject in that case was not pregnant. You cannot fire a woman for being pregnant, even if you don’t like the circumstances of the pregnancy.
Speak for a unanimous Court, Justice Roberts wrote (at pages 21-22 of the slip opinion):
The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission. When a minister who has been fired sues her church alleging her termination was discriminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance for us. The Church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way.
From the article:
‘A termination letter said she was fired for violating a section of her employment contract that requires employees to “comply with and act consistently in accordance with the stated philosophy and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church,” according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court .’
As you can see the letter describes the reason for termination as a violation of a section of her employment contract. It is all very simple. She signed a contract stating that she would comply by the stated philosophy and teachings of The Roman Catholic Church. She didn't. She was therefor fired.
Do you really think that she is going to win against a multi-trillion Dollar World Wide religious and political organization comprised of more than 1.2 billion people and represented in every country on the face of the Earth? Do you really think a first year teacher not even smart enough to avoid a pregnancy that would not only inconvenience her personal life but end her religious teaching career is really going to win against the Roman Catholic Church in a court of law? Really? I highly doubt it!
It is a shake down for a money and 40% to the lawyer and the Church decided not to play. They decided their contract and Morals Clause describing ALL EMPLOYEES as Ministerial Employees is going to protect them from this blatent money grab by the knucklehead teacher and her ambulance chaising lawyer.
The stakes are high enough for the moral and legal implications that the Church will ride this pony all the way to the Supreme Court. But they will not have too, precedent has been set that she IS subject to the Morality Clause. The lawyer will not be able to pay for it and after the Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church SCOTUIS decision not even the scumbags at the ACLU or one of its’ ugly headed clones will take up the cause, pro-bono or otherwise. That is why they are full blown in the papers and TV trying to shame the Church into a settlement.
The Church won't settle, the teacher will get another job, hopefully finding a husband and getting some well needed life lessons and the lawyer will go back to chasing ambulances. Meanwhile the Church will go on for another few Millenniums. And there isn't a damn thing anybody can do about it, not him, her, you, Federal Government, not even the Supreme Court.
The Church has stood against & out lasted all sorts of dictators & tyrants from Nero to Robespierre to Mao and Stalin, they won't sweat Justice Roberts or even Barack Husein Obama.
The church can send anything they want but it’s still against federal law to fire someone for being pregnant, no matter how they got that way.
It’s true:
You can’t fix stupid!
You also can’t fire someone for being pregnant, no matter how they got that way.
Yeah, well all you’ve got on your side is the 1st Amendment and a unanimous Supreme Court decision.
She was not fired for being pregnant.
Even her lawyer doesn't claim that she was fired for being pregnant. He claims that she was not subject to the Morality Clause in the contract. He says that she was NOT a ministerial employee.
From the article:
‘Her attorney said that, “as a non-ministerial employee, (she) was not subject to a ‘morality clause.’”’
However, the U.S. Supreme Court states, most recently in the Hosanna-tabor Case ruling that, A TEACHER CAN BE AND IS A MINISTERIAL EMPLOYEE:
From the SCOTUS ruling by Chief Justice Roberts for the unanimous court:
‘The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission. When a minister who has been fired sues her church alleging her termination was discriminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance for us. The Church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way.’
As the court found: The religious institution through the free exercise clause of the first amendment has broad leeway in deciding WHO is a ministerial employee. WHAT they can consider immoral behavior and the FACT that the institution MUST BE FREE to choose who they want to guide their flock. Whether that is a Reverend, a teacher or the janitor. They are all ministerial employees if the institution says that they are. Thus they are subject to the morality clause of a contract that they freely sign.
In your reasoning: If a teacher becomes pregnant by taking part in the production of a pornographic film. The fact that the teacher is pregnant would preclude the ability for the school to terminate that employee, because she is pregnant, regardless of the disrepute that the school would incur by continuing to employ a woman who is a pornographer! That is outright insanity! In this instance: A teacher applies for a job and is offered a contract to teach for one school year. The contract contains a morality clause that binds the teacher to live her life in a manner in accordance with the religious teachings of the institution. The teacher willingly signs the contract.
The teacher presents proof that she has broken her morality clause within a few months of starting employment and is released FOR CAUSE by breaching her contract.
The teacher sues claiming that she is NOT SUBJECT to the morality clause.
Precedent, however, shows that she IS subject to the morality clause. She has no case.
quod erat demonstrandum!
This is on Free Republic!
Imagine how stupid the average low information voter truly is!
What if the employee is unmarried but getting birth control through company insurance? Is that considered advertising the fact? Would the employer have to first determine if the BC is for hormone regulation (e.g. migraines)?
Just thinking out loud. Wondering about various circumstances. I guess since the Catholic church is opposed to BC they wouldn't be providing it through their insurance plan. Well, unless Obamacare forces them to do so.
Used to be, employers could remove specific procedures from coverage. For instance, my husband's plan used to specifically exclude gastric bypass for treatment of obesity.
So, PREVIOUSLY --- previous to the HHS Anti-Conscience Mandate---if the Catholic/traditional Christian insurer wanted to exclude contraception/abortion, they'd have to do it by specifically excluding certain prescription drugs or surgical procedures from coverage: OC's, tubal ligations, contraceptive patches, injections, implants and the like.
HHS won't let you make that decision anymore.
On a related topic, I'm feeling like I need to buy something from Hobby Lobby.
And maybe send a widow's mite of cash to the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).
We will eventually, and certainly, win. Why? Because physical and human reality are on our side. The Universe is on our side. And He who made the heavens and the earth.
Also Privacy policies of insurance, medical services and HIPA regulations would prevent the organization from knowing the drugs and procedures that a person may be getting.
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.