Should a Christian school be allowed to fire a teacher for fornication?

MikeVFF said:

Privately owned, it's their right. /Thread

Click to expand...

WRONG.

They are still required to follow federal law. They failed to do so and now their stupid asses will go broke paying for it.

Blackdog said:

Not wrong.

She was not fired for being pregnant. She was fired for premarital sex which according to the school is a breach of the moral contract she was shown and agreed to upon hiring.

She surrendered the information freely as well, so no invasion or privacy either.

As I said the Florida law does not in any way disagree with the Federal laws.

Click to expand...

You are incorrect. The school is incorrect. You should stop defending the actions of some christianazi asshat administrators.

Vader said:

WRONG.

They are still required to follow federal law. They failed to do so and now their stupid asses will go broke paying for it.

Click to expand...

SO you would support Hooters being forced to hire fat chicks and men as waitresses and waiters? Maybe strip clubs that cater to straight men should be forced to hire men as strippers.

Blackdog said:

In Florida, employees are presumed to be "at will." At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it's not illegal. Generally, employees who work under an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons specified in the contract. In Florida, it is very difficult to overcome the at-will presumption.

Employers are not allowed to terminate or discriminate against employees for the following reasons:

•Age
•Race
•Sex
•Religion
•National origin
•Disability
•Pregnancy
It's illegal for an employer to consider these characteristics with regard to:

•Promotions
•Job assignments
•Termination
•Wages
And it's illegal for an employer to terminate an employee:
•For refusing to break a law
•In retaliation for filing a discrimination or safety claim
•For taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act
•Without following its own stated procedure or policy
•For reasons not contained in the employment contract, if one exists

MyFoxOrlando obtained a letter sent to Hamilton from the school which asked not to return because of "fornication," sex outside of marriage. It also claims that Hamilton knew about the school's moral stance through the employment application process.

I don’t think she is going to win this as the school did nothing wrong.

Click to expand...

As usual, you're incorrect. People on the right generally have a very hard time understanding the fact that their religious beliefs are not the law. The fallout from this case will be the first of many lessons that lighten their pocketbooks.

The school fired her for being pregnant. Also .. what she does outside of school hours is not the school's business. They have no right to do what they did and they are going to lose their shirts over it. Their moral code is NOT the law. What that insturctor does in her personal life is NONE OF THE SCHOOL'S BUSINESS.

The school was wrong and anybody who supports their nazi behavior is wrong.

Vader said:

As usual, you're incorrect. People on the right generally have a very hard time understanding the fact that their religious beliefs are not the law. The fallout from this case will be the first of many lessons that lighten their pocketbooks.

The school fired her for being pregnant. Also .. what she does outside of school hours is not the school's business. They have no right to do what they did and they are going to lose their shirts over it. Their moral code is NOT the law. What that insturctor does in her personal life is NONE OF THE SCHOOL'S BUSINESS.

.

Click to expand...

Again the school is a private business,she agreed to go by that private business' standards and she is in a at will state so they can fire her for what ever reason they feel,heck they do not even have to supply a reason for her being fired.

The school was wrong and anybody who supports their nazi behavior is wrong

Click to expand...

Seeing how you think everything is a nazi, I am sure most people will take what you said with a grain of salt. If this forum had a Godwins law award you would be the winner.

jamesrage said:

Again the school is a private business,she agreed to go by that private business' standards and she is in a at will state so they can fire her for what ever reason they feel,heck they do not even have to supply a reason.

Seeing how you think everything is a nazi, I am sure most people will take what you said with a grain of salt. If this forum had a Godwins law award you would be the winner.

Click to expand...

Why are you even bothering?

The posts are uninformed and worthless for other than laughter.

Vader said:

As usual, you're incorrect. People on the right generally have a very hard time understanding the fact that their religious beliefs are not the law. The fallout from this case will be the first of many lessons that lighten their pocketbooks.

The school fired her for being pregnant. Also .. what she does outside of school hours is not the school's business. They have no right to do what they did and they are going to lose their shirts over it. Their moral code is NOT the law. What that insturctor does in her personal life is NONE OF THE SCHOOL'S BUSINESS.

The school was wrong and anybody who supports their nazi behavior is wrong.

Click to expand...

I am no lawyer, but I think she will lose. Her lawyer will charge her a bunch of money and hopefully she can afford it.
Lawyers will take a case knowing it is unwinnable, seen it done within my own family. Judge threw it out immediately.

UtahBill said:

I am no lawyer, but I think she will lose. Her lawyer will charge her a bunch of money and hopefully she can afford it.
Lawyers will take a case knowing it is unwinnable, seen it done within my own family. Judge threw it out immediately.

Click to expand...

Its possible her lawyer thinks she can win,instead of just trying to take her money.We do live in a country were a dumb ass can knowingly put a cup of hot liquid between her legs, burn herself with that liquid and win millions of dollars, we also live a country were manufactures put warning this product contains nuts on a package of peanuts,mixed nuts and peanut butter

jamesrage said:

Again the school is a private business,she agreed to go by that private business' standards and she is in a at will state so they can fire her for what ever reason they feel,heck they do not even have to supply a reason for her being fired.

Click to expand...

Here's the crux right now...we don't really know what she agreed to as we don't know what documentation was provided to her that might have affirmed or dispelled the "at will" protection of the employer. There are a handful of other issues that would come into play in a situation so clouded by religious morality being a term of employment such as the application of the same standard being applied to every employee, whether the employer's "hands were clean" in the firing, etc.

Also, we need to know what the employer's stated reason for the firing was. If it crossed the boundaries of enforcing a religious morality in their stated disciplinary documentation, there's an issue there.

It's true...they could fire her because they don't like the color of her shoes one day. That's not protected. However, if it is proven that they fired her for one of the protected pretextual reasons covered under Federal law, then there will be damages. I can almost guarantee that in today's climate of mistrust of religion and it's associated injustices that there will be a move to settle by the employer rather than suffer a PR nightmare for pursuing this to the highest courts. If they do decide to pursue a zealous defense of the "at will" employment agreement in this case, it will make it to the SCotUS and become a high profile case that will alter the playing field forever...for one side of the argument or the other.

My chips are down for this woman, not because I think she is right (although she has a legitimate gripe) but because I understand the state of society when it comes to issues like this.

I think she got fired so the school wouldn't have to fund her maternity leave....
Haven't we all seen someone use their medical benefits too much and then get fired?

jallman said:

I never made the claim she was a child so your rebuttal to that is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

The point of that was to also show that she understands that her actions have consequences.

jallman said:

It's an understood and implied agreement between the employer and the employee. It is also governed by federal labor laws.

Click to expand...

Which were not broken.

jallman said:

And part of the risk an employer takes when they decide to be abusive and discriminate is that they get sued and pay through the nose for it. And I can almost guarantee that's what will happen. It will probably come in the form of the school settling first just to make the PR nightmare go away.

Click to expand...

It was a stupid move; I won't deny that, but it was perfectly legal.

They should be allowed to fire her...but not until after they've paid for her maternity leave. Otherwise it's no different than concocting some other bull**** excuse to fire an employee when they've requested maternity leave. In most states it is illegal to drum up some pretext to fire an employee who requests leave to which they are entitled.

What does her employment contract state?

It is unreasonable (in most cases) for an employer to dictate all of your behavior, especially off hours time. However, if the contract does include a clause about behavior reflecting upon the school, then that's another story.

jamesrage said:

Again the school is a private business,she agreed to go by that private business' standards and she is in a at will state so they can fire her for what ever reason they feel,heck they do not even have to supply a reason for her being fired.

Click to expand...

The fact that she was pregnant got her fired. That is a violation of federal law. The school made a serious error and it is going to cost them some money.

Lets just agree to disagree.

obvious Child said:

What does her employment contract state?

It is unreasonable (in most cases) for an employer to dictate all of your behavior, especially off hours time. However, if the contract does include a clause about behavior reflecting upon the school, then that's another story.

Click to expand...

Truth is we don't know. They said they have a "moral" clause that was made clear to her upon hiring.

Blackdog said:

No it does not.

So if an employee steals money and gets fired. She can then sue because she was pregnant?

I guess no company can ever fire a pregnant woman for any reason? Seriously, that is your argument? :doh

PS that is most definitely NOT the Federal law.

Click to expand...

No, that is not my argument... seriously, is that your conclusion? :doh

I showed the Federal Law, the debate is over. Sorry. :2razz:

Aunt Spiker said:

Why are you assuming that these people judging her have had premarital sex?
Do you have statistics or research on that?

Click to expand...

There was no assumption. That is what we do and have always done. I thought it was common knowledge.

The study, which used statistics from the 1982, 1988, 1995 and 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, asked about 40,000 people ages 15-44 about their sexual behavior and traced the trends in premarital sex back to the 1950s.

Of those interviewed in 2002, 95% reported they had had premarital sex; 93% said they did so by age 30. Among women born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 did.

Most Americans have had premarital sex, study finds - USATODAY.com

Bodhisattva said:

No, that is not my argument... seriously, is that your conclusion? :doh

I showed the Federal Law, the debate is over. Sorry. :2razz:

Click to expand...

If she was not fired for being pregnant, the Federal law does not apply even if she is pregnant. You said she was fired and because she was pregnant at the time, and so it was illegal...

Bodhisattva said:

They can say that she was fired for any reason, the result is the same. She was fired when she was pregnant, and that violates the Federal Law. End of story. *shrugs*

Click to expand...

This is not the case according to the school. Since we don't have all the evidence, we can't know for certain either way.

So my point stands and your argument is completely out of the realm of reality.

tryreading said:

It makes that code a lie for them personally, and for just about all of the rest of us.

Click to expand...

Well, yes. I personally view that code as a goal to shoot for that no one ever reaches.

Bodhisattva said:

Pregnancy Discrimination
Pregnancy discrimination involves treating a woman (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth.

Firing her is treating her unfavorably... is it not? It would have been legal if she had not been pregnant, she has a loophole since she is pregnant. The fact that she is pregnant is what makes it illegal. It is right there in plain English. Agreed, if she was not pregnant, she would have no case.

Click to expand...

You obviously misunderstood my point.

As I understand it, she was not fired because of her pregnancy.

If that is your contention, please prove to me that she was, as I have not seen anything that indicates such.

Vader said:

As usual, you're incorrect. People on the right generally have a very hard time understanding the fact that their religious beliefs are not the law. The fallout from this case will be the first of many lessons that lighten their pocketbooks.

The school fired her for being pregnant. Also, what she does outside of school hours is not the school's business. They have no right to do what they did and they are going to lose their shirts over it. Their moral code is NOT the law. What that instructor does in her personal life is NONE OF THE SCHOOL'S BUSINESS.

The school was wrong and anybody who supports their Nazi behavior is wrong.

Click to expand...

My understanding of the situation leads me to the conclusion that you are incorrect.

Thus, please prove your statements.

Bodhisattva said:

No, that is not my argument... seriously, is that your conclusion? :doh

I showed the Federal Law, the debate is over. Sorry. :2razz:

Click to expand...

I’ve seen that several times in this thread already – What part of the incident indicates to you that this portion of the Federal Law applies to this case?

Additionally, don’t you think her lawyer would have mentioned it if such a legal violation had occurred?

Blackdog said:

If she was not fired for being pregnant, the Federal law does not apply even if she is pregnant. You said she was fired and because she was pregnant at the time, and so it was illegal...



This is not the case according to the school. Since we don't have all the evidence, we can't know for certain either way.

So my point stands and your argument is completely out of the realm of reality.

Click to expand...

If my argument is within the realm of reality, since that is where I live, then it is in the realm of reality and not completely out of the realm of reality.
As to the rest, I disagree. I think that we just have to wait and see what the outcome is, since they might just tack on premarital sex to the list of things
that are illegal to discriminate against.

The Mark said:

Well, yes. I personally view that code as a goal to shoot for that no one ever reaches.

You obviously misunderstood my point.

As I understand it, she was not fired because of her pregnancy.

If that is your contention, please prove to me that she was, as I have not seen anything that indicates such.
My understanding of the situation leads me to the conclusion that you are incorrect.

Thus, please prove your statements.

I’ve seen that several times in this thread already – What part of the incident indicates to you that this portion of the Federal Law applies to this case?

Additionally, don’t you think her lawyer would have mentioned it if such a legal violation had occurred?

Click to expand...

The part that indicates that she was fired for premarital sex. I link being pregnant to having sex. They are somewhat related. I don't know, I am taking a step back and thinking that maybe my argument isn't as valid as I originally thought, to be honest. Regardless, even if I am wrong, I think that premarital sex will simply be included into what a person cannot be discrimated against for.

Regarding the lawyer, do you know how many idiotically stupid lawyers there are out there? Or perhaps I am just wrong... *shrugs*

Blackdog said:

In Florida, employees are presumed to be "at will." At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it's not illegal. Generally, employees who work under an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons specified in the contract. In Florida, it is very difficult to overcome the at-will presumption.

Employers are not allowed to terminate or discriminate against employees for the following reasons:

•Age
•Race
•Sex
•Religion
•National origin
•Disability
•Pregnancy
It's illegal for an employer to consider these characteristics with regard to:

•Promotions
•Job assignments
•Termination
•Wages
And it's illegal for an employer to terminate an employee:
•For refusing to break a law
•In retaliation for filing a discrimination or safety claim
•For taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act
•Without following its own stated procedure or policy
•For reasons not contained in the employment contract, if one exists

MyFoxOrlando obtained a letter sent to Hamilton from the school which asked not to return because of "fornication," sex outside of marriage. It also claims that Hamilton knew about the school's moral stance through the employment application process.

I don’t think she is going to win this as the school did nothing wrong.

Click to expand...

I'm only on page 4 of 20+ pages so if this was already addressed...sorry.

Couldn't a legal case be made based on sex (gender). A woman might "show" that she's had sex outside of marriage because of a pregnancy, where a man would not have outward signs.

That sounds like discrimination to me.

:shrug:

...back to reading through this thread

Bodhisattva said:

The part that indicates that she was fired for premarital sex. I link being pregnant to having sex. They are somewhat related.

Click to expand...

NOOoooooo!!!!

Really??!??!??

That bit of info blindsided me… :shock:

Bodhisattva said:

I don't know, I am taking a step back and thinking that maybe my argument isn't as valid as I originally thought, to be honest. Regardless, even if I am wrong, I think that premarital sex will simply be included into what a person cannot be discriminated against for.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but that’s future.

Presently, as I understand the situation, they did nothing illegal.

Bodhisattva said:

Regarding the lawyer, do you know how many idiotically stupid lawyers there are out there? Or perhaps I am just wrong... *shrugs*

Click to expand...

A point.

jallman said:

No it hasn't which is exactly why this is still up for debate.



I don't have so much insecurity about my position on this that I need to chest thump with wagers and gambles. However, if either of us recall this story after the two years or more it takes to go through it's circuit of courts and appeals, sure, a platinum membership on me if the school doesn't settle for any money.

Click to expand...

Since settlements are often confidential, the $$ may not be revealed. I think you should stick with your first thought of not wagering.

From what I know of the federal discrimination laws and protected characteristics, this woman would win a legal case although it's it's more likely to end with a settlement.

Bodhisattva, what if the sex didn't result in pregnancy, would it be legal to fire her then?