Teacher fired for "fornification"

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Teacher fired for "fornification"

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Teacher fired for "fornification"

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Teacher fired for "fornification" - 6/14/2010 5:16:13 PM

Level

Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

A Florida teacher alleges that she was fired from her job instructing fourth-graders at a Christian school because she got pregnant before marriage -- an act school authorities labeled "fornication."

Jarretta Hamilton, 39, admitted to school authorities at Southland Christian School in St. Cloud, Fla., in 2009 that she had conceived before her marriage in April of that year. One week after requesting maternity leave, she was unemployed.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/florida-christian-school-dismisses-teacher-jarretta-hamilton-for-fornication/19509791

Being a Christian school, should they have the right to do this?

_____________________________

Fake the heat and scratch the itch
Skinned up knees and salty lips
Let go it's harder holding on
One more trip and I'll be gone

~~ Stone Temple Pilots

Post #: 1

RE: Teacher fired for "fornification" - 6/14/2010 5:29:58 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

I think the terms of her employment may be in play here. All depends on what she agreed too when she signed on. Is there a morality clause? did it cover this? Faith based schools seem to have some leeway in what they can and cannot do. I dont agree with this. But its not my place to say. When this goes to court, i have no doubt the school will be admonished for talking about the facts of her firing. However, depending on her employment contract, that may be all that happens... a slap on the wrist.. a small monetary penalty... and its over.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Level)

Post #: 2

RE: Teacher fired for "fornification" - 6/14/2010 5:35:02 PM

DarkSteven

Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline

Since they are a religious organization, EEOC laws do not apply...

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 3

RE: Teacher fired for "fornification" - 6/14/2010 5:42:05 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

Not quite so cut and dry, DS.

Baptist Church School to Pay $53,000 to Settle Two EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Suits
Greenforest-McCalep Violated Federal Law by Firing and Refusing to Hire Expectant Mothers, Federal Agency Charged

ATLANTA – Greenforest-McCalep Christian Academic Center, a subsidiary of Greenforest Community Baptist Church, will pay $53,000 and furnish other relief to settle two pregnancy discrimination lawsuits brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The agency had charged that the Decatur, Ga., Christian school violated federal law when it fired one employee and rescinded a job offer to an applicant after it became aware they were pregnant.

The EEOC filed the first suit against Greenforest-McCalep in May 2009 (Case 1:09-CV-1227) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of Victoria Y. Brown. Brown had already received an employment offer from Greenforest-McCalep when she went for a meeting with the headmaster to discuss some final pre-employment matters before she was to begin teaching in the 2007-08 academic year. During this meeting, Brown informed the headmaster that she was pregnant. In response, the EEOC said, the headmaster told her that she would not be able to teach there because of her pregnancy.

The EEOC first filed its second suit in September 2009 (Case 1:09-CV-2694) on behalf of Shuntal V. Prince, who had been employed as a teacher at Greenforest-McCalep since June 2006. In January 2008, Prince was called into a meeting with the school’s director to discuss some concerns she had about Prince’s health. During this meeting, the director advised Prince that she heard rumors that she was pregnant. Prince confirmed that she was pregnant and that she planned to have her child. The director then informed Prince that “today is your last day” at Greenforest-McCalep, the EEOC said.

The consent decrees settling the suits, in addition to the monetary relief of $53,000 ($30,000 for Brown and $23,000 for Prince), include provisions for developing new pregnancy discrimination policy and procedures, equal employment opportunity training, reporting and posting of anti-discrimination notices. In the suits and consent decrees, Greenforest-McCalep denied any wrongdoing.

“Pregnant women have an equal right to participate in the work force,” said Robert Dawkins, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office. “Federal law guarantees that no expectant mother should be deprived of her livelihood simply because of her pregnancy.”

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-26-10.cfm

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Post #: 4

RE: Teacher fired for "fornification" - 6/14/2010 5:42:20 PM

Level

Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline

tazzy, as far as I know, there is supposedly a "morality" clause. But as Steven said, being what they are, may insulate them from action.

Personally, I hate it. Maybe they should add a few lessons in forgiveness, or something.

_____________________________

Fake the heat and scratch the itch
Skinned up knees and salty lips
Let go it's harder holding on
One more trip and I'll be gone

~~ Stone Temple Pilots

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Post #: 5

RE: Teacher fired for "fornification" - 6/14/2010 5:43:42 PM

flcouple2009

Posts: 2784
Joined: 1/8/2009
Status: offline

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that anyone who takes a job teaching at a Christian school and is then surprised they are fired for acts that go against what the school stands for is probably not bright enough to be teaching kids.

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Post #: 6

RE: Teacher fired for "fornification" - 6/14/2010 5:54:14 PM

Elisabella

Posts: 3939
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level
Being a Christian school, should they have the right to do this?

Yes, I think they definitely should have the right to fire her.

To me, religious schools aren't just "secular education taught by nuns" but rather a combination of secular and religious education. I don't think that a religious institution should be forced to keep an employee on the payroll who blatantly violates their interpretation of scripture.

Separation of church and state goes both ways - the church doesn't dictate what the state does, and the state doesn't dictate what the church does.

(in reply to Level)

Post #: 7

RE: Teacher fired for "fornification" - 6/14/2010 5:55:03 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

The EEOC sees it differently, Elisabella.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Elisabella)

Post #: 8

RE: Teacher fired for "fornification" - 6/14/2010 5:57:17 PM

Elisabella

Posts: 3939
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The EEOC sees it differently, Elisabella.

Then IMO the EEOC is wrong.

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 9

RE: Teacher fired for "fornification" - 6/14/2010 6:01:17 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

But it is their guidelines that govern hiring and firing practices here, keeping the field level. Discrimination is wrong, no matter where it happens, or how. It prevents people from firing based upon skin color, sex, religion. This is just another example of how women are discriminated against. Would they have fired a man for getting a woman pregnant outside of marriage? How would they have known? Its not like a woman can hide it.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Elisabella)

Post #: 10

RE: Teacher fired for "fornification" - 6/14/2010 6:21:31 PM

Elisabella

Posts: 3939
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

But it is their guidelines that govern hiring and firing practices here, keeping the field level. Discrimination is wrong, no matter where it happens, or how. It prevents people from firing based upon skin color, sex, religion. This is just another example of how women are discriminated against. Would they have fired a man for getting a woman pregnant outside of marriage? How would they have known? Its not like a woman can hide it.

To me the combining of church and state sets a dangerous precedent. I agree that discrimination is wrong, but to me, the right for a church to adhere to its own scripture trumps an individual's right to work for a church while ignoring that church's scripture.

And no, it's not like discrimination based on gender or race, because the woman didn't get fired for an accident of her birth, she got fired for choosing to have sex outside of marriage. Now I'm not Christian, I don't see anything wrong with having sex outside of marriage, but I also don't see anything wrong with Christians who do believe that. It's their religion. It's their school. They're not just teaching kids math and reading, they're teaching kids how to be good Christians, and they should have a right to be able to teach their interpretation of scripture.

I think laws prohibiting a religious organization from acting in accordance with their faith are bordering on unconstitutional. If you want to work for a church, you're playing by church rules, and if you don't want to play by those rules you should work somewhere else. IMO this woman is being incredibly disrespectful to a religion by saying that she should have the right to ignore what that religion teaches while being an educator at an institution that is supposed to instill the values she ignores into children.

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 11

RE: Teacher fired for "fornification" - 6/14/2010 6:30:08 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

Which is why i said it is all dependent on the employment contract. If its included, and she signed away her right to that particular protection, then she has no leg to stand upon legally. If she did not then the church must follow EEOC guidelines. If an entity has a differing opinion of a moral issue than the EEOC, then a smart lawyer will realize this and have it included as an exclusion in the contract. If the church failed in this, then its the churches fault.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Elisabella)

Post #: 12

RE: Teacher fired for "fornification" - 6/14/2010 6:31:47 PM

JstAnotherSub

Posts: 6174
Status: offline

Religious institutions do have the right to require that their employees or representatives adhere to the tenets of the organization's beliefs, said Robert Dawkins, a regional attorney with the EEOC. A Baptist church, for example, could require its pastor be Baptist as a condition of employment, he said.
The Baptist tradition, like that of many other Christian denominations, teaches that sex outside marriage is wrong. Greenforest-McCalep would have been within its rights to terminate Prince and rescind Brown's offer if it was only based on religious grounds.
But the EEOC charged school officials' actions weren't tied to their being unwed mothers, because in both cases the women said they were told they could return after their babies were born. That, Dawkins said, violated employment law barring discrimination. http://blackchristiannews.com/news/2010/03/greenforest-mccalep-christian-academic-center-in-atlanta-settle-discrimination-lawsuits-with-two-pre.html

_____________________________

yep

(in reply to Elisabella)

Post #: 13

RE: Teacher fired for "fornification" - 6/14/2010 6:34:48 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

The EEOC web site differs from your account. One was told that was her "last day"...

The EEOC first filed its second suit in September 2009 (Case 1:09-CV-2694) on behalf of Shuntal V. Prince, who had been employed as a teacher at Greenforest-McCalep since June 2006. In January 2008, Prince was called into a meeting with the school’s director to discuss some concerns she had about Prince’s health. During this meeting, the director advised Prince that she heard rumors that she was pregnant. Prince confirmed that she was pregnant and that she planned to have her child. The director then informed Prince that “today is your last day” at Greenforest-McCalep, the EEOC said.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to JstAnotherSub)

Post #: 14

RE: Teacher fired for "fornification" - 6/14/2010 6:34:48 PM

Elisabella

Posts: 3939
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
If an entity has a differing opinion of a moral issue than the EEOC, then a smart lawyer will realize this and have it included as an exclusion in the contract. If the church failed in this, then its the churches fault.

I suppose that's the most tolerable solution...kind of sad, but I guess it works.

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 15

RE: Teacher fired for "fornification" - 6/14/2010 6:36:18 PM

LadyCimarron

Posts: 625
Joined: 12/29/2009
Status: offline

Religious entities are allowed leeway but there is a limit. If the court has already ruled on a case with similar circumstances they are not going to revisit it. And the fact that they kept her on until she requested maternity leave certainly works against the school.

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 16

RE: Teacher fired for "fornification" - 6/14/2010 6:38:26 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

I have no doubt it will be included after those cases. It is sad. But it is legally required. If a church wishes to have its religion upheld, then you hire only those who are of that faith and who agree to uphold those teachings. This is what happens when you hire lay people who may not follow that particular faith. As in all things... get it in writing.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Elisabella)

Post #: 17

RE: Teacher fired for "fornification" - 6/14/2010 6:39:10 PM

Elisabella

Posts: 3939
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyCimarron

Religious entities are allowed leeway but there is a limit. If the court has already ruled on a case with similar circumstances they are not going to revisit it. And the fact that they kept her on until she requested maternity leave certainly works against the school.

I actually assumed the reason that it came up when she requested maternity leave was because they realized her delivery date was less than 9 months after she got married. She probably put in for leave in advance, and might not have even been showing when she did....if she conceived 2 months before her wedding or less, depending on her body type and all that it might be hard to tell if she was 4 months or 6 months along etc.

< Message edited by Elisabella -- 6/14/2010 6:45:29 PM >

(in reply to LadyCimarron)

Post #: 18

RE: Teacher fired for "fornification" - 6/14/2010 6:40:12 PM

JstAnotherSub

Posts: 6174
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The EEOC web site differs from your account. One was told that was her "last day"...

The EEOC first filed its second suit in September 2009 (Case 1:09-CV-2694) on behalf of Shuntal V. Prince, who had been employed as a teacher at Greenforest-McCalep since June 2006. In January 2008, Prince was called into a meeting with the school’s director to discuss some concerns she had about Prince’s health. During this meeting, the director advised Prince that she heard rumors that she was pregnant. Prince confirmed that she was pregnant and that she planned to have her child. The director then informed Prince that “today is your last day” at Greenforest-McCalep, the EEOC said.

I saw it differed with what had been reported when the story was on the news here. What was reported in the link I posted went along with what was reported then. It was the first link that came up, but I believe the lawyers involved from both sides backed up the version I posted at the time.

Who knows though. I am well aware that just cause it is printed and accessible on-line does not make it truth.

_____________________________

yep

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 19

RE: Teacher fired for "fornification" - 6/14/2010 6:59:17 PM

LadyCimarron

Posts: 625
Joined: 12/29/2009
Status: offline

If the preganancy is their only proof of fornication then preganancy is the reason for termination. (otherwise she could have claimed immaculate conception.)

My biggest problem with it is that policies against fornication have almost always been applied to women only. That goes all the way back to the Bible when a woman was brought to Jesus and accused of being caught "in the very act of adultery" and they wanted to stone her. If she had been caught in the very act of adultery, 2 people minimum should have been brought before Jesus.
If we allow women in this country to get discriminated against in the name of separation of church and state then we have no right to think the Taliban is wrong for murdering women in the name of their religious beliefs. Yes, there is a huge difference between firing and murdering, but the underlying issue is the same. Religious laws that unfairly discriminate against women.

(in reply to Elisabella)

Post #: 20

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Teacher fired for "fornification"

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109