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.