Rockwall Texas teacher fired for out-of-wedlock pregnancy

[dmcowen674]

Surprised no one posted this yet.

Not surprised coming out of Texas, the heart of the radical religious right.


4-11-2012

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highs...stian-school-wedlock-pregnancy-145601399.html

Rockwall Texas teacher fired for out-of-wedlock pregnancy


In an incredibly bizarre situation that appears headed for a legal challenge, a Dallas-area volleyball coach and science teacher was fired by the Christian school at which she worked for becoming pregnant before being married.

Rockwall (Texas) Heritage Christian Academy volleyball coach and science teacher Cathy Samford was fired during the fall semester after she became pregnant out of wedlock. Samford had led the volleyball program for three years and had been named the school's coach of the year once during that span.

Still, that couldn't help save her job when she first admitted her pregnancy during the fall semester, with the school terminating her based on a violation of her contract's morals clause because it was determined her pregnancy meant she could not serve as "a Christian role model."

That has left Samford uninsured and in financial distress as she heads towards giving birth, a situation she never considered possible when she was a proud member of Heritage Christian Academy's faculty.

 

[PokerGuy]

She's working for a private school and they have their rules. Don't agree to them? Don't work there. She agreed to the rules that were stipulated, broke them by having relations outside of wedlock and getting pregnant outside of wedlock.

What's the issue?

 

[Texashiker]

Why was she having sex out of wedlock?

 

[HumblePie]

Love those Christian rules about forgiveness.....

 

[TheVrolok]

Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions constitutes unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII and Chapter 21, Texas Labor Code

Wonder if she will have a claim under the above. Doesn't mention anything about wedlock. Wound be interested to see how, if at all, applicable it is.

 

[crashtestdummy]

It depends on the writing of the morals clause in her contract, but I'm guessing that they will say they fired her not for the pregnancy but for premarital sex. Most likely she'll lose this case if there's a specific prohibition on extramarital sexual activity. If it only speaks about being a "Christian role model" in abstract terms, she might have a case.

 

[woolfe9999]

Why was she having sex out of wedlock?

Why do you care or even consider that your business, or anyone else's business, for that matter?

 

[woolfe9999]

She's working for a private school and they have their rules. Don't agree to them? Don't work there. She agreed to the rules that were stipulated, broke them by having relations outside of wedlock and getting pregnant outside of wedlock.

What's the issue?

This is basically the correct analysis here. I don't think any laws exist that prohibit private institutions from discriminating against women who get pregnant out of wedlock.

Would be ironic if now, not having health insurance or a job, she ends up having an abortion.

 

[HumblePie]

It depends on the writing of the morals clause in her contract, but I'm guessing that they will say they fired her not for the pregnancy but for premarital sex. Most likely she'll lose this case if there's a specific prohibition on extramarital sexual activity. If it only speaks about being a "Christian role model" in abstract terms, she might have a case.

What if she claims she found a wad on the ground and shoved it inside Or even worse that it was immaculate conception. Let them disprove that one....

 

[Moonbeam]

What if she claims she found a wad on the ground and shoved it inside Or even worse that it was immaculate conception. Let them disprove that one....

Didn't the same thing happen to Mary? Where's the proof she had sex?

 

[MovingTarget]

Honestly, I'm not surprised by this at all. Many working in private/parochial schools have this type of morality standards clause. Some even go so far as to have rules against couples' cohabitation before marriage, whether or not sexual activity takes place. Teachers in these schools are very dedicated to their job, but unfortunately they lose many of their freedoms if they want to remain employed.

 

[Phokus]

This is basically the correct analysis here. I don't think any laws exist that prohibit private institutions from discriminating against women who get pregnant out of wedlock.

Would be ironic if now, not having health insurance or a job, she ends up having an abortion.

She might have a case actually:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33276433&postcount=5

 

[Wreckem]

Its comes down to a distinction on hows she is classified as an employee. IE: Is she a ministerial employee. Just because she works at a private school does NOT mean she is a ministerial employee.

 

[Wreckem]

This is basically the correct analysis here. I don't think any laws exist that prohibit private institutions from discriminating against women who get pregnant out of wedlock.

Would be ironic if now, not having health insurance or a job, she ends up having an abortion.

The federal govt has their rules that trump a private institutions rules. That is unless she is a ministerial employee and then the establishment clause applies and allows unadulterated rampant discrimination by so called "christians" or "insert other religion".

Oddly enough if a state actor violates some of these same similar laws, the plaintiffs cannot recover monetary damages.

 

[Wreckem]

She might have a case actually:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33276433&postcount=5

Establishment clause trumps that according to SCotUS, well when it comes to certain employees who have ministerial functions as part of their jobs.

But there would be ample arguments to say she doesn't perform ministerial functions. My bet this is a long drawn out lawsuit and the school settles for high six figure/low seven figures instead of going bankrupt from legal costs.

 

[sactoking]

Establishment clause trumps that according to SCotUS, well when it comes to certain employees who have ministerial functions as part of their jobs.

But there would be ample arguments to say she doesn't perform ministerial functions. My bet this is a long drawn out lawsuit and the school settles for high six figure/low seven figures instead of going bankrupt from legal costs.

In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission the USSC decided unanimously that the Lutheran church was allowed to fire a religious teacher as a minister under the First Amendment. That case was decided in January of this year.

What's interesting is that while the decision was unanimous the consenting opinions varied in their reasoning. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion and said that since the teacher in question had training as a "commissioned minister", accepted a formal call to service, and accepted a ministerial housing allowance she was decidedly a minister.

Clarence Thomas' consenting opinion offered a more relaxed standard, basically saying that the courts should defer to a religious organization's "good-faith understanding of who qualifies as a minister".

The Alito and Kagan consenting opinion was even more lenient, saying that the ministerial exemption was not limited to those with formal religious training.

"It should apply to any 'employee' who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith," Justice Alito said. "While a purely secular teacher would not qualify for the 'ministerial' exception, the constitutional protection of religious teachers is not somehow diminished when they take on secular functions in addition to their religious ones."

I'd say that under these standards she would have a very tough road to showing that she was not under the ministerial exemption unless she can show unequivocally that her duties were 100% secular.

 

[Wreckem]

In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission the USSC decided unanimously that the Lutheran church was allowed to fire a religious teacher as a minister under the First Amendment. That case was decided in January of this year.

What's interesting is that while the decision was unanimous the consenting opinions varied in their reasoning. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion and said that since the teacher in question had training as a "commissioned minister", accepted a formal call to service, and accepted a ministerial housing allowance she was decidedly a minister.

Clarence Thomas' consenting opinion offered a more relaxed standard, basically saying that the courts should defer to a religious organization's "good-faith understanding of who qualifies as a minister".

The Alito and Kagan consenting opinion was even more lenient, saying that the ministerial exemption was not limited to those with formal religious training.

I'd say that under these standards she would have a very tough road to showing that she was not under the ministerial exemption unless she can show unequivocally that her duties were 100% secular.

Concurrences are nice but their reasoning isn't the law. They are concurrences because the majority didn't agree with the reasoning. The majority opinion does give a firm footing that there is a ministerial exception but there is no real test, only squishy factors.

And like I said, she could argue. I never said she would win. But she could argue it, and argue it, and argue it. 5-6 years of litigation(or longer), through all the appellate levels is super expensive. Several million range in most cases. All of which the school would have to eat win or lose. If they lost the school would probably also have to eat the same amount in attorney's fees for the plaintiff. That doesn't even get in to this being a complete PR disaster for the school.

In the end, I still think this is going to get quietly swept under the rug once the initial press subsides.

 

[Kadarin]

She should reevaluate her decision to be a part of that fucked up religion.

 

[theeedude]

That's her reward for not getting an abortion.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why was she having sex out of wedlock?

Because she she could, because she wanted to, and because it's perfectly legal. Happens all the time, and has since the origins of the human species.

You have a problem with that? Maybe we should stone her?

 

[Double Trouble]

Because she she could, because she wanted to, and because it's perfectly legal. Happens all the time, and has since the origins of the human species.

You have a problem with that? Maybe we should stone her?

She most certainly has the right to have sex, have a baby, that's not the issue. The question is, why should the school not be allowed to set forth a moral code and require that teachers at that private school follow the code if they want to work there? Is there some sort of constitutional right to having sex out of wedlock that trumps the right of the school to choose how their employees should behave?

The whole strict religion thing is bullshit as far as I'm concerned, but I don't see why they can't set a moral code and require that people who work there follow it.

 

[ericlp]

Surprised no one posted this yet.

volleyball coach and science teacher was fired by the christian school at which she worked

I feel sorry for the kids going to this school and would hate to be her science teacher.

Anyway. I hope she takes em to court and wins but.. It won't change much. Maybe she can get on unemployment benefits.

Anyway christain organized religion is a strange bunch of whacked out freaks so it doesn't surprise me!

 

[ericlp]

That's her reward for not getting an abortion.

Thanks for the laugh! That was funny! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Doppel]

They are right. Christian school and she contradicts its tenets, no big deal.

 

[Jhhnn]

They are right. Christian school and she contradicts its tenets, no big deal.

The first reader comment in the linked story-

Jesus wouldn't have fired her. Too bad more Christians are more concerned with looking right than doing right.

The legality of the firing remains unclear, but the faux morality behind it is obvious.