Posted on 06/09/2010 10:00:05 AM PDT by inflorida
You’ve go that right, YCQ! I can’t believe how many FReepers are on this thread bashing Christians and bashing them for upholding moral standards in general. I wonder if they know that it is against Biblical principles to sue another Christian in court?
“I do not think doing so is a particularly shining moment for this school.”
Would you say that you’re throwing stones here at the school administrators?
Their “shining moment” is irrelevant. Standards in conduct are in place for good reason. Their decision, in this situation, must be made not just for the teacher, but for the school administration as well as the student body.
The school can’t practice a double standard. It’s not about one person. It’s about the faculty and students. I guess students could engage in sexual promiscuity and see that there are no consequences if the decision was made to ignore the schools own rules, bylaws, and regulations?
“There is a distinction between whether they are legally allowed to fire her and whether doing so is morally right.”
You’re making a judgment call without all of the facts.
In Corinthians, the Bible requires church discipline. I suspect you do not follow your own teaching. If we take “let those who are without sin cast the first stone” out of context, as you are doing, we are unable to condemn Hitler, Mao, Charles Manson, Bernie Madoff, Stalin among thousand of evil doers.
That is an interesting question. Is the act of conception (or, rather, the act resulting in conception) medical information? I guess the act has medical implications, but so does drinking coffee or eating a cheeseburger, if you define it broadly enough.
What if an employer made public the fact that an employee went skydiving, the result of which was death (or a broken ankle, etc.)? I don’t think the act of skydiving is medical information, but then again, I like to think the law is logical.
First, you’re wrong about fornication. In the Bible that refers to premarital sex. If you need details, just ask.
Second, there is no HIPPA angle to this. Her lawyer (who seems to me to be less than fully competent) has only filed a discrimination suit. He based it on the idea that the school doesn’t fire married people, so they shouldn’t fire unmarried people. (Hubba, hubba, what a brainiac.)
Have you been able to find the lawsuit online yet? I haven’t, but one report I read said the revealing info was in a letter the school sent to staff telling them she was fired for violation of her contract’s morality clause.
But I’d love to read the allegation in the suit, to find out what she is alleging was the revelation of her conception date.
There have been tons of these posters that signed up withing the last two months.
I just post their signup dates for everyone to see.
My grandfather used to say that the first child can come most any time, but the others come quite regular . . .
That said, if it is a Christian school and has stated so and hired her with that criteria, they have a right to invoke Christian morals. Non-Christians are not held to the same standard, nor are non-Christian schools.
Expecting Christian moral standards from a non-Christian is rather like trying to teach a cow to fly.
I went to greatschools.net and read reviews about the school. Interesting. It seems like a pretty harsh place.
My kids go to a Christian school, and a few weeks ago a 7th grader took tequilla to school and started handing it out. The school gave the parent a choice of quietly pulling their son out of the school or the school would expel him. The parents pulled him out of the school, but one of his friends posted about what happened on facebook.
I like it when schools handle situations quietly.
No, you are full of standards. God values forgivness. That is His standard. He championed that and this school from hell rejected it.
The problem in this case is that the parents actually were married at the time the child was born and that the school had to go out and do some digging to find out that the child had been conceived while they were merely engaged and not actually married. Why?
She probably had enemies there somewhere (churches can be full of very spiteful and bitter folk) and they were using this. Do remember that a certain Virgin was not married when she conceived, either, and that folks would have stoned her, too, if Joseph hadn’t done the right thing and married her.
Not really.
Privacy Rule
The Privacy Rule took effect on April 14, 2003, with a one-year extension for certain “small plans”. The HIPAA Privacy Rule regulates the use and disclosure of certain information held by “covered entities” (generally, health care clearinghouses, employer sponsored health plans, health insurers, and medical service providers that engage in certain transactions.)[10]
Note that there is no provision for the Sponsor of the Plan.
With that, if she signed a morality clause in her contract, they had a right to fire her. If she cannot prove monetary damages from the passing of the information she volunteered, she doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Without the HIPPA law to fall back on, she has to prove slander. The truth is not slander.
It was tactless and she should have not answered the question. If I were her employer, I wouldn’t have asked that loaded question.
I did not know you were allowed to ask a woman if she was pregnant. Thought that was verbotten.
Did you miss the Ten Commandments that He also championed or the part about repentance before forgiveness comes into play?
Where in that article does it say that the school asked her if she was pregnant when they hired her? Please provide the relevant quote from the article.
Ping for your personal intact virginity expertise.
You are correct that the plans are covered, but I find it hard to believe that the school administration would be plan administrators, with access to PHI. In this instance, the information was provided voluntarily outside the continuum of care. I don't believe it's even remotely connected to HIPAA. But it's a huge EEOC issue.
In essence, a school nurse who gains knowledge of PHI through the course of her responsibilities as a caregiver is bound by HIPAA. So is the benefits rep or plan administrator who is aware of the plan of care. The principal and other faculty would not be bound by HIPAA, although they could be subject to its regs if they illegally broached systems containing that data. The correct response from the teacher would have been: "With all due respect, the date of conception is none of your business". She'll get a nice chunk of change from the EEOC though.
I fail.
Further inquiries should be directed to Giant Daniel or Army Mike.
You already said that was irrelevant. TQC 1, Jesus 0.
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.