Ohio Teacher Says She Was Fired Over Pregnancy, Files Suit Against Catholic Archdiocese

The Republic ^ | 10/30/12 | AP

[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.'"

[stuartcr]

Sounds like getting pregnant is pretty much the only way anyone would probably ever know someone violated those rules...if she’d used more effective birth control, no one would probably ever know what a horrible teacher and person she is.

[Jim from C-Town]

OR possibly, or she could have refrained from having sexual intercourse until she was married. She chose not to do so.

As for effective birth control, abstinence is the only effective birth control. All types of birth control have failure rates. Most between 3% - 12%. if the airline industry had a failure rate of 3%, how comfortable would any one be in taking a flight? Yet, the idiot public believes that a condom, 5% Failure rate, or oral contraception, 8% failure rate, or standard days method 12% gives them all the protection they need to engage in behavior that is best engaged in by those in a committed marriage where the presence of an unborn child isn't a problem.

As for being a horrible teacher, that is not at issue. As for being a horrible person, that is also not at issue. She is, as I am, as you are, as all people, a sinner. That is not at issue. What is at issue is that she violated the terms of her contract with the particular sin that she engaged in. That is the cause of her dismissal.

There are several things she could have done to violate the terms of her morals clause. Getting pregnant was only one of them. She could have also been involved in a gay pride parade. She could have openly called for female priests or for ‘sexual liberation’ within the Church. She could have joined planned parenthood. She could have been posting sexually explicit pictures on a website or texting obscene photos to other people and it became known. She could have taken part in an embezzlement scheme or robbery and been indicted and convicted. Even if she didn't serve time in jail or penitentiary. All these things would have violated the terms of her contract. A contract that she willingly signed in order to be employed at the school. Much like the sin she engaged in, NOBODY FORCED HER!

This is all very simple contract and labor law. It seems that you have some sort of difficulty with understanding black letter law. It seems that the teacher and her attorney also have the same problem. They will be schooled by the Arch Diocese and the judge. I would counter sue for legal expenses if I was the Arch Bishop, the fact that he isn't is a sign of his charitable nature.

[AppyPappy]

Your assertion is that she can be fired for the circumstances of her pregnancy. I don’t think that is legally true.

[Jim from C-Town]

Well, you are wrong.

She was not fired for being pregnant. She was fired for violating the Morals Clause of her contract. It is very simple and very legal. She is waisting her time. He r attorney should be sanctioned for malpractice. He knows this is settled law.

[rollo tomasi]

What is the purpose of private institutions, lol? Hmm, so smug moral relativists can whine and cry about some injustice done by a private institution? You have a problem with free enterprise? Thought this was a pro-liberty bunch, not a haven of Cultural Marxists. BTW, male teachers get nailed for adultery in the RCC school systems, so it does go both ways, most just take it like a man and don;t sue, thus raising their fist further at Catholic Doctrine.

Most Parents spend $$$ to send their offspring to a private Roman Catholic school expecting moral absolutism to reign supreme.

Roman Catholic School conforms to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

A potential unmarried employee seeks a position to teach at Roman Catholic School.

Roman Catholic School hires potential unmarried employee.

The (Now) unmarried employee signs a morality clause in a binding contract.

Unmarried employee breaks contract, gets pregnant, and becomes a walking contradiction in front of her students (Whose parents send their offspring to learn about the precepts of Roman Catholic Church).

Roman Catholic Church understands the folly and destructive power of moral relativism, thus fires the employee for breaking morality CONTRACT.

If Roman Catholic School directly receives a perpetual payment of public funds, the teacher has a case.

If there was no morality contract (Standard practice in most RCC school systems, aka, maintaining and promoting Catholic Doctrine) lady has a case.

Those that do not get this are either



or

[choirboy]

Other employees for sure. I don’t know any where else.

[AppyPappy]

I imagine the judge will see she is pregnant, see she was fired and rule accordingly. The law protecting pregnant women doesn’t have any “buts” as far as I can tell. I don’t think the law says “You cannot fire a woman for being pregnant unless you think she is wrong for being pregnant”.

[bmwcyle]

Guilty

[Jim from C-Town]

Sorry, but you are wrong.

Her pregnancy is a byproduct of her conduct. It is NOT the reason she was fired. She was fired for breaking the terms of her Morality Clause in her employment contract. It is no different than being cited for Prostitution, a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions.

It is a situation of moral turpitude. Engaging in premarital sexual intercourse is a moral failing of the first order per the strictures of the Roman Catholic Church, HER EMPLOYER. Engaging in the act is the violation of the contract. The pregnancy is simply undeniable proof.

[AppyPappy]

I don’t think a company’s justification of “We don’t want you to be pregnant now” is going to fly in court when they admittedly fired her for being pregnant. They just didn’t like the circumstances of the pregnancy.

But if the law says you cannot fire someone for being pregnant, you can’t do it. You don’t get to pick and choose how it gets done. They should have fired her for having sex out of wedlock before she became pregnant.

It’s a violation of federal law to fire a woman for being pregnant. There’s no other way around it.

[Jim from C-Town]

Once again, YOU ARE WRONG! Do a little research on Morality Clauses in contract law. You might also check rulings from SCOTUS as to the leeway given to religious organizations because of a pesky section of the U.S. Constitution referred to as the First Amendment.

She signed a contract, The contract had a morals clause pertaining to Roman Catholic Doctrine. She violated the terms of her contract. The pregnancy is simply proof of that violation as it is a byproduct of the violation. Prior to her pregnancy, there was no proof of her breaking of the contract. Had she engaged in a public action that brought moral disrepute to the Roman Catholic Church like participating in a Gay Pride Parade, or a rally in support of Abortion rights and someone found out and it was proved or she admitted to that action. She would have been fired for that violation as well and she damn well knows that she would have no legal recourse.

When you enter into an employment contract you voluntarily give up certain rights in exchange for pay. You can not engage in your free speech rights in the work place by calling your supervisor a ‘standing pile of talking horseshit’ and not expect to be released from your employment. You can not even wear certain types of clothing like t-shirts with foul language or pornographic images on them, even though these are proven forms of free speech. Your employer would fire you for cause based on the fact that you violated terms of your employment agreement by not following the stated in the employee handbook.

This is settled law. There is no way around that fact for you, for her or for her lawyer. It would require a ruling reversing dozens of precedents by the SCOTUS. That simply will not happen in this case. It not only goes against SETTLED labor law, the SCOUTUS would invalidate dozens of rulings about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

No one forced the teacher to apply for employment at the school. No one forced her to accept her employment. No one forced her to enter into a contract. No one forced her to engage in premarital sexual intercourse. She freely chose all these actions herself. She is responsible for holding up her end of the contract. She didn't and she was held accountable for her actions.

This has nothing to do with weather she is a ‘nice person’ or a ‘good teacher’. By her actions, premarital sexual intercourse, and the byproduct of this action, her unplanned pregnancy, she became an unfit example to the students whose parents spend thousands of dollars a year to send their children to a school that preaches and is expected to uphold certain moral principals. A big one is their adherence to sexual morals. She didn't adhere to those sexual morals and she is gone.

[AppyPappy]

I don’t think you understand the idea of federal law. You disagree with the law but it still exists. You can fire someone for being in a Gay Pride Parade or supporting abortion but federal law says you cannot fire someone for being pregnant.
Federal law trumps a company’s desire. It’s not my fault.

[Jim from C-Town]

I am certain that I understand that Federal Law can not trump the U.S. Constitution. This is settled law. Period, end of story.

It is not my fault that you are too obtuse to understand that she was not fired for being pregnant. She was fired for violating the terms of her employment contract

No matter how you twist it, she became pregnant by engaging in behavior that her employment contract precluded, therefore she was fired. Had she NOT been engaged in premarital sexual intercourse, it would have been impossible for her to become pregnant.

Pregnancy is not the reason for her release. Moral turpitude is the cause. Had she become pregnant and she was married and the school fired her, she would have a case. She didn't and she doesn't.

No Act of Congress trumps the Constitution. There are numerous examples of just this type of case being upheld in benefit of a religious institution. The School acted well within the law and had every right to exercise the Morals Clause in their Contract.

A little example:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/contractsprof_blog/2012/04/more-on-morals-clauses-.html

Case Law:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/contractsprof_blog/2012/04/more-on-morals-clauses-.html

As a paid employee, A TEACHER of small children no less, She is considerred a minister of the Church and has NO STANDING in even bringing up the suite.

That is the reason why the case should be dismissed with prejudice and the attorney for the teacher should be sanctioned up to and including disbarment for knowingly filing a frivolous suite.

The discussion is over. The law is explicit and unchangeable without a Constitutional Amendment. It is time for her to grow up, accept responsibility for her immoral behavior and seak new employment.

[AppyPappy]

If you sign a contract that says “You cannot sell your house to blacks”, it doesn’t trump federal discrimination law. The company is going to have to admit they fired her for being pregnant. They can argue “We didn’t like the way she became pregnant” but you still can’t fire someone for being pregnant. They will have to re-assign her to another job where she doesn’t expose her adultery to the children.

[Jim from C-Town]

Not the same thing.

Read the case law:“EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School”:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf

This is just the most recent case showing that religious institutions have a broad exemption from EEOC and Federal employment laws when questions of morality are involved. Particularly the morality of both religious and lay teachers.

The ruling was 9-0 against the EEOC and in favor of the Christian School for firing a teacher who became pregnant. It is settled law. A 9-0 decision is simply not reversed without a Constitutional Amendment. That just plain and simple will not happen.

So you are completely and totally wrong. Demonstrably so!

You have lost the argument. Give up. Your continued argument is not only futile and irrelevant it would show stupidity.

[AppyPappy]

You didn’t read the case you cited. It didn’t involve a pregnancy. Try again and get it right this time.

Find me a case where a teacher was fired for being pregnant. I’ll wait patiently.

[Mr. Lucky]

That she might otherwise be protected under state or federal law is irrelevant IF she was a ministerial employee. IF the Archdiocese considers teachers to be ministers (and it's the Bishop's opinion, not the plaintiff's that counts), she has no claim. Why any church would not consider teachers as ministers after the Supreme Court's Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church decision would be a real mystery.

[Jim from C-Town]

Once again, you continue to be wrong.

She is considered a minister in the Church because she is a teacher in a religious school. She may not consider herself one, but the school, and the parents who pay the bill, do. It is irrelevant weather she believes that she violated her own moral code, she violated the Churches. She stated in her accepting her employment contract that she would live by the tenants of Catholic Morality. She engaged in premarital sexual activity while employed as a teacher in the Catholic School showing contempt for the moral standards of the employer, a Private Religious institution with an exception from EEOC and Federal Law based on the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

Pregnancy has NOTHING to do with her dismissal. It is a byproduct of the immoral act that was the just cause of her dismissal based on the morals clause in her employment contract that she freely chose to sign.

[AppyPappy]

If it is against federal law to fire a woman for being pregnant, is it against the law to fire a woman because she is pregnant? Does church law overrule federal law?

I’m betting it does not.

[AppyPappy]

Show me where the case in point showed the church law overruling a federal law. I’ll wait patiently.

“Pregnancy has NOTHING to do with her dismissal.”
Really? How did they know she had been immoral?