Or for the want of one of the former, as the case may be:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - An unmarried teacher says she was discriminated against and fired from her job at a Roman Catholic school in New York for being pregnant and has filed a federal complaint.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn said on Tuesday that McCusker's situation was difficult, but the Saint Rose of Lima School had had no choice but to follow the principles contained in its teachers' handbook dictating that "a teacher can not violate the tenets of Catholic morality."
McCusker, 26, was dismissed from the school after telling school administrators she was pregnant and did not plan to marry.
She and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a wrongful dismissal complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Monday asserting the firing was "intentional and unlawful discrimination based on McCusker's sex and pregnant status."
In a statement, McCusker said she did not "understand how a religion that prides itself on being forgiving and on valuing life" could fire her for choosing to have a baby.
In a termination letter to McCusker dated October 11, Theresa Andersen, the school's principal, cited the school handbook's provision on morality, but also praised McCusker's "high degree of professionalism."
© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.
I think it's a false dilemma. Why can't an employer with a specific mission (like a church) insist that it doesn't want employees to have either:
ReplyDeletea. abortions
and
b. unwed pregnancy?
It is certainly within the capability of employees who choose a church setting to meet those requirements.
She's not being fired for being pregnant but for having premarital sex. If she was raped, filed a police report and then decided to keep the child, she would not be fired.
ReplyDeleteHad someone walked in on her having sex in the teacher's lounge or something, she would be fired just the same.
If it was a male teacher caught having sex outside of marriage, he would have been fired as well.
No discrimination here based on gender or physical condition.
I'm not sure if the school handled the matter properly or not, but it seems like the really big unaswered question here is whether or not the teacher recognized that her actions were against what the institution stands for, and sought forgiveness and mercy from the school. Had she done so (and really meant it), I doubt that she ever would have sued - which leads me to believe that she hasn't. (I wonder what her view of pre-marital sex is now...my guess is that she believes in the doctrine of 'don't be dumb enough to get caught'.)
ReplyDeleteIf she has repented and sought forgiveness, I might still support her firing. But if she was let go, I know that I would feel a burden to help her make a new start.
BTW, there have been some great headers to the articles around here lately...but this one might be my favorite.
ReplyDelete[old geezer] Things were a lot simpler fifty years ago -- when my mother got pregnant with me she was a bookkeeper at Western Electric. They canned her when she started to show -- and she was married! [/old geezer]
ReplyDeleteI suspect that there may be various federal funding a "private" school can seek.
ReplyDeleteI have never heard of a Catholic elementary or secondary high school that accepts any federal money except for school lunch subsidies for the poor, and those attach to the child, not the school (the school usually facilitates the application process, though). Should that open the school to federal intervention, in your view?
If she has repented and sought forgiveness...
ReplyDeleteWhich beggars the question, did she do anything that requires forgiveness and penance? After all, most Catholic schools don't actually require one to be Catholic to teach. It sounds to me like she entered the act with eyes entirely open and willing to accept all responsibilities thus incurred. Legally, I don't think she has a case. Morally, well, that's a larger and more difficult question, and I'm more apt to come down on her side.
You'll have to forgive me. I've been reading a lot of Eric Hoffer lately, and I'm on a differentiated individual versus will-of-the-masses kick.
Tom, I can't believe you deleted a comment that pointed out a straw man just because the straw man supported your position. That's just dishonest.
ReplyDeleteTo wit, I pointed out that this
And any criminal can keep his job (and stay out of jail) if he conceals his crime.
is dishonest and inflammatory and only serves to discredit what is otherwise a worthy position.
What's not to believe?
ReplyDeleteGood point. Boy, I can see that this thread will be down to 14 comments in no time...
Precisely because I felt you were conflating a woman who has a child out of wedlock with a criminal. Since you have explained yourself, I withdraw the complaint.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't me; perhaps it was one of my colleagues or you pressed the wrong button.
ReplyDeleteBut there's no crying at The Reform Club, as in baseball. The umpire's decision is final.
Actually I do wonder what the point is?
ReplyDeleteWithout commenting on how they handled the whole thing, I think the point is that they have parents that spend a lot of money in order to put their kids into a special environment that is designed to transmit a certain value system. It's kind of hard for the school to promote those values if one of their teachers openly defies one of the biggies.
[BTW, someone made the comment last night on one of the cable shows that she was already pregnant when she signed her teaching contract - seriously, what was she thinking would happen?]
I believe the moral complication is that the teacher is in a position of authority, and leaving her in it would indicate a tacit acceptance.
ReplyDeleteShe would not be drummed out of the Church itself. We are all sinners.
"I think it's fine for the Catholic School to terminate her employment so long as they aren't the recipients of any federal aid or considered a federal charity. If they are then they must be held to the standards of federal employment practices which of course preclude against firing someone for being pregnant."
ReplyDeleteWhat a strange world we live in. The state extracts money from Catholic parents to pay for a federal government that will forbid them from receiving these tax dollars to educate their children consistent with their Catholic tradition. Apparently, Catholic money is good for the government as long as it is not being spent by Catholics on Catholic things. Madison is spinning in his grave.
It's not clear in what universe this would be considered fair or just.
"As long as the school is consistent about it I have no problem but they have to choose whether they really want to be a private employer or not."
Yet, in California the Supreme Court forced Catholic Charities to supply its employees with contraceptives, even though the health plan is entirely private.
Tlaloc, the welfare state is a jealous God; it will not tolerate putting any Gods before it, even the true and living One.
I guess having sex is more sinful than putting a pregnant woman out in the street.
ReplyDeleteI suppose one could counter by saying that she thought sex was more important than that job. Or that she was somehow above their rules.
I'm not all that fond of having her lose her job if she sincerely repented, but I think that sincerity would understand the difficult position she put the school in and would accept whatever decision they made about her future employment. Aside from all of the value issues, the school runs into all kinds of labor policy consistency issues the next time something like this happens. Legally, you run into a boatload of problems if you try to terminate employment when you selectively enforce your policies.
In other words, making an exception most likely means that the policy will have to be discarded. Apparently the school board decided that the long-term damage to Ms. McCusker's future earnings by her dismissal was less than the damage to the school's moral order would be if she were kept.