Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia who argued the case on behalf of the defendant, a Lutheran school, said the upshot of the ruling was likely to be that “substantial religious instruction is going to be enough.”
Asked about professors at Catholic universities like Notre Dame, Professor Laycock said: “If he teaches theology, he’s covered. If he teaches English or physics or some clearly secular subjects, he is clearly not covered.”
Herx was not a catholic, she was a lit teacher, not a theology teacher.
In other words, it gives the balance of power to the school to interpret the meaning of the contract. That part is also stated somewhere in the contract the employee signs. There is no union, or any other kind of collective bargaining power private school employees have access to. That will never happen.
Additionally, teachers work on a year-to-year contract. Scary thought isn't it? Piss off the wrong person one time and you can find yourself unemployed even after 20 years of service.
I used to call it "the golden rule." Those with the gold make the rules.
An ethical/moral clause in a contract requiring what's stated below is vague (server as moral exemplars) but violates no law.
And yes, the school gets to interpret what "serve as moral exemplars" means.
Am I on the school's side? No way in a hundred years, but it is what it is and I understand that.
I also know it most likely futile to fight it.
Emily Herx, Teacher Claims She Was Fired From Catholic School For In Vitro FertilizationThe diocese said that teachers, even those such as Herx who aren't Catholic, are required by their contracts to abide by Catholic tenets and "serve as moral exemplars."
If the details are as reported she should sue, win a financial settlement, and the church should still be allowed to fire her. My personal opinions re in-vitro fertilization are irrelevant with regard to the church's position on in-vitro fertilization. The church has the right to their position and to hire and fire accordingly. What IS relevant is that as an employee she approached her supervisor and was given the green light to proceed. IMO...its a pretty simple case.
According to the teacher, her Principle knew she was getting the procedure. He apparently didn't voice a concern, it was only later and by a pastor was she 'condemned'.
Slippery ground as she wasn't a minister, ordained, or a religious teacher. One article did bring up an interesting point. The Catholic Church condemns many things American Catholics do as a matter course. Birth Control and 'living in sin' were mentioned. That makes the official statement on this matter suspect as it says Churches have the right to enforce Church Doctrine IMPARTIALLY. That maybe another sticking point if it is discovered The Church overlooked many other 'sinners' but have decided to make control of an American Catholic's reproduction THE ISSUE.
But it wouldn't be the first time the Mother Church hid behind the Cross.
Has the Church actually said her contract wasn't going to be renewed for having the procedure done? Or was it because she missed so much time to have the procedure done?
Instead of going into group-think and use terms like "Libbys", maybe you should educate yourself about why the Law takes precedence over any particular religion.