Unmarried teacher at catholic school fired for getting pregnant is suing school

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
If a company can tell an employee what they have to inject into their bodies, can a company tell an employee what they can not inject?

Remember, company policy trumps civil rights.

The way I understand it, nothing trumps civil rights. I don't think this falls under civil rights anyways. In the case of the nurse and the vaccinations, nobody is forcing her to work there. In the case of the pregnant teacher, there is the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) which forbids discrimination based on pregnancy when it comes to any aspect of employment.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,509
29,090
146
In the case of the pregnant teacher, there is the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) which forbids discrimination based on pregnancy when it comes to any aspect of employment.

Well, I'm just glad the school made her sign that contract. Discrimination is generally difficult to prove.

:D
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Contracts are unenforceable where they violate the law.

Apparently we should trust women to make choices, except when it comes to signing contracts.

Let me make this relevant to you:

--being preggars is a federally protected class.

She isn't being fired for being pregnant. She is being fired for being pregnant AND UNMARRIED.

Being an irresponsible vector of disease is a known threat to society. Being preggars does not constitute a threat to society.

Actually being pregnant outside of marriage does constitute a threat to society.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
not in the eyes of the law



You are pretty dumb. You know that, right?

Children living in households with unrelated adults are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as children living with two biological parents, according to a study of Missouri data published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2005.

Children living in stepfamilies or with single parents are at higher risk of physical or sexual assault than children living with two biological or adoptive parents, according to several studies co-authored by David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center.

Girls whose parents divorce face significantly higher risk of sexual assault, whether they live with their mother or father, according to research by Robin Wilson, a family law professor at Washington and Lee University.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2183857...igher-risk-nontraditional-homes/#.UM9XfIM701J

What is dumb about not wanting children to die or be raped?:confused:
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
I think federal law protects you from being fired for getting preggars.

that "contract" would then be worthless. In fact, all the "contract" does is provide rather clear evidence of discrimination.

whoops

Nope. It's not that she got pregnant but did so unmarried and that violates principles of the religion and that's stated in the contract. She has no legal standing, like it or not.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
Apparently we should trust women to make choices, except when it comes to signing contracts.



She isn't being fired for being pregnant. She is being fired for being pregnant AND UNMARRIED.



Actually being pregnant outside of marriage does constitute a threat to society.

I'm not going to respond to your trolling except to say that marital status is also a protected class.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
I'm not going to respond to your trolling except to say that marital status is also a protected class.

Not when it comes to this. In fact it's provided for in the civil rights act.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,509
29,090
146
Nope. It's not that she got pregnant but did so unmarried and that violates principles of the religion and that's stated in the contract. She has no legal standing, like it or not.

how is that contract upheld above federal law?

the fact is, there are unmarried people working there that wouldn't be fired. the only difference here, is that she is pregnant.

....in the eyes of the federalis, she was fired for being pregnant.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
the fact is, there are unmarried people working there that wouldn't be fired. the only difference here, is that she is pregnant.

....in the eyes of the federalis, she was fired for being pregnant.







I get that you will probably never accept the existence of nuance in this world

O the irony.

She wasn't fired for being pregnant. She was fired for being unmarred AND pregnant.

Unless you are alleging that they also fire married pregnant women?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
how is that contract upheld above federal law?

the fact is, there are unmarried people working there that wouldn't be fired. the only difference here, is that she is pregnant.

....in the eyes of the federalis, she was fired for being pregnant.

It isn't above federal law. Federal law has exemptions for religious institutions and that includes their schools. Religious based schools can and do have the legal right to an expectation of conformity to their sensibilities. Do you think this is the first time this has ever come up?

Again sorry but she has no legal basis unless she can demonstrate that she was given cause that unwed pregnancies aren't against doctrine or was given a clear indication that this was permissible.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
In the thread about the nurse getting fired for not taking the flu shot that was the consensus.

Civil rights do not trump company policy.

There was no civil rights issue in the case of the nurse. That fact that you refuse to accept that don't make it so.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
how is that contract upheld above federal law?

the fact is, there are unmarried people working there that wouldn't be fired. the only difference here, is that she is pregnant.

....in the eyes of the federalis, she was fired for being pregnant.

And the fact is there are probably plenty of women who worked there that were not fired for being pregnant. The difference is they didn't get pregnant outside of marriage.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Apparently we should trust women to make choices, except when it comes to signing contracts.



She isn't being fired for being pregnant. She is being fired for being pregnant AND UNMARRIED.



Actually being pregnant outside of marriage does constitute a threat to society.


images
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
You mean except where the corporation was forcing invasive medical procedures on people.

Then she should never have signed her contract in the first place, not to mention not have flu shots like she had in the past.

Your toaster is calling.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Huh? My reply was to Texashiker. It's in regards to a different issue/person not the teacher.

Sorry, Tex has his, ahem, interesting perspectives and I saw you mention civil rights. I wasn't arguing with you.

Others have failed to note that there are competing rights which were addressed by the actual act, not what seems to be believed. Consider it a post to clarify which ought to have been included elsewhere.