• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teacher Claims She Was Fired From Catholic School For In Vitro Fertilization

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.

Not sure I'm following you. What do you mean she was "given the green light to proceed?" Her supervisor told her it was OK to have the procedure done, or her supervisor told her she could take time off work when she requested time off to have the procedure done?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060439095 said:
My understanding of this matter is from working for many years in private education. All private schools (parochial and non-parochial) have personnel departments (may be under a different title) who understand employment contracts, employee relations, etc. and balance the wording of the contract to be vague and favor the school for any situation that may arise.

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 Fertilization

Again, all instructors cited in the previous court cases had contracts. The contract is only valid if the employer does not violate federal law. The case comes down to "ministerial exception", and again, the diocese will have to show that Herx was a "minister", showing that her class included substantial religious teaching. I don't know how they can do that with the course that she taught, not to mention that she was not catholic, so how she could be required to teach church doctrine is a big sticking point.
 
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?
 
Listen up. Libbys have screamed from the roof top about "choice", IMO that applies to the job you work. Don't like an employer then "move on". The Catholic Church is a religious organization and as such the GOVERNMENT needs to keep it's nose out of their business.

If you don't want to be a Catholic or work for the Catholic Org., then use that wonderful thing you call "CHOICE" and don't. Simple

How do you whether she wants to a Catholic or not or whether she wants to work for a Catholic organisation or not? Those thing are entirely irrelevant to this discussion anyway. If you don't want people to be able to sue employers over discrimination because you think that's taking "choice" away from the employers, then start a petition to repeal the statute. It doesn't change the fact there is a law against employer discrimination, and the Catholic Church is not above the Law. Whether there's a disability or whether the exceptions include teachers is something for the court to decide, not you.

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.
 
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?
The OP article includes the following;

Diocese officials said in a statement issued to The Associated Press on Wednesday that the lawsuit challenges its rights as a religious institution "to make religious based decisions consistent with its religious standards on an impartial basis."

Which suggests to me that they're admitting sacking her because IVF goes against their religious standards. They also seem to be taking the position that religious organisations should have the right to break the law if they want, a position I've questioned a couple of times but have yet heard any kind of moral justification for.
 
The people are the church. Or... do you hate the building? That's weird.

Do you feel that way about the priests - that when they molest children, every Catholics also molest those children since they are all "the Church"?

I personally dislike the rules, the policies, the teachings and the people who set those things. There's a distinct difference between members and institutions, when the Catholic Church conducted the Inquisition, I believe that most Catholics are innocent of those atrocities, and some were victims themselves.
 
Again, all instructors cited in the previous court cases had contracts. The contract is only valid if the employer does not violate federal law. The case comes down to "ministerial exception", and again, the diocese will have to show that Herx was a "minister", showing that her class included substantial religious teaching. I don't know how they can do that with the course that she taught, not to mention that she was not catholic, so how she could be required to teach church doctrine is a big sticking point.

The teacher fired had a contract; I guarantee that. You really think her contract violated any law? Not a snowballs chance in Hell. The teacher violated the tenets of the contract according to the school, which acknowledged by the legal article I posted earlier, is not in her favor. Sorry but I'm afraid its game over for her whether you believe it or not.
 
Last edited:
I would think that wraps this case up rather well. Seriously, she signed a contract.

Which doesn't matter if the contract violates the Law, it's amazing how many people seem to not understand this concept in this thread when it should be common knowledge:


Contract Law - An Introduction

Typically, in order to be enforceable, a contract must involve the following elements:

[h=3]A "Meeting of the Minds" (Mutual Consent)[/h] The parties to the contract have a mutual understanding of what the contract covers. For example, in a contract for the sale of a "mustang", the buyer thinks he will obtain a car and the seller believes he is contracting to sell a horse, there is no meeting of the minds and the contract will likely be held unenforceable.

[h=3]Offer and Acceptance[/h] The contract involves an offer (or more than one offer) to another party, who accepts the offer. For example, in a contract for the sale of a piano, the seller may offer the piano to the buyer for $1,000.00. The buyer's acceptance of that offer is a necessary part of creating a binding contract for the sale of the piano.
Please note that a counter-offer is not an acceptance, and will typically be treated as a rejection of the offer. For example, if the buyer counter-offers to purchase the piano for $800.00, that typically counts as a rejection of the original offer for sale. If the seller accepts the counter-offer, a contract may be completed. However, if the seller rejects the counter-offer, the buyer will not ordinarily be entitled to enforce the prior $1,000.00 price if the seller decides either to raise the price or to sell the piano to somebody else.

[h=3]Mutual Consideration (The mutual exchange of something of value)[/h] In order to be valid, the parties to a contract must exchange something of value. In the case of the sale of a piano, the buyer receives something of value in the form of the piano, and the seller receives money.
While the validity of consideration may be subject to attack on the basis that it is illusory (e.g., one party receives only what the other party was already obligated to provide), or that there is a failure of consideration (e.g., the consideration received by one party is essentially worthless), these defenses will not let a party to a contract escape the consequences of bad negotiation. For example, if a seller enters into a contract to sell a piano for $100, and later gets an offer from somebody else for $1,000, the seller can't revoke the contract on the basis that the piano was worth a lot more than he bargained to receive.

[h=3]Performance or Delivery[/h] In order to be enforceable, the action contemplated by the contract must be completed. For example, if the purchaser of a piano pays the $1,000 purchase price, he can enforce the contract to require the delivery of the piano. However, unless the contract provides that delivery will occur before payment, the buyer may not be able to enforce the contract if he does not "perform" by paying the $1,000. Similarly, again depending upon the contract terms, the seller may not be able to enforce the contract without first delivering the piano.
In a typical "breach of contract" action, the party alleging the breach will recite that it performed all of its duties under the contract, whereas the other party failed to perform its duties or obligations.
Additionally, the following elements may factor into the enforceability of any contract:

[h=3]Good Faith[/h] It is implicit within all contracts that the parties are acting in good faith. For example, if the seller of a "mustang" knows that the buyer thinks he is purchasing a car, but secretly intends to sell the buyer a horse, the seller is not acting in good faith and the contract will not be enforceable.

[h=3]No Violation of Public Policy[/h] In order to be enforceable, a contract cannot violate "public policy". For example, if the subject matter of a contract is illegal, you cannot enforce the contract. A contract for the sale of illegal drugs, for example, violates public policy and is not enforceable.
Please note that public policy can shift. Traditionally, many states refused to honor gambling debts incurred in other jurisdictions on public policy grounds. However, as more and more states have permitted gambling within their own borders, that policy has mostly been abandoned and gambling debts from legal enterprises are now typically enforceable. (A "bookie" might not be able to enforce a debt arising from an illegal gambling enterprise, but a legal casino will now typically be able to enforce its debt.) Similarly, it used to be legal to sell "switchblade kits" through the U.S. mail, but that practice is now illegal. Contracts for the interstate sale of such kits were no longer enforceable following that change in the law.
 
Last edited:
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060439483 said:
The teacher fired had a contract; I guarantee that. You really think her contract violated any law? Not a snowballs chance in Hell. The teacher violated the tenets of the contract according to the school, which acknowledged by the legal article I posted earlier, is not in her favor. Sorry but I'm afraid its game over for her whether you believe it or not.

It's not for you to decide whether the contract violates the law, whether you believe it or not, it's the job of the justice system at this point.
 
It's not for you to decide whether the contract violates the law, whether you believe it or not, it's the job of the justice system at this point.

Quoting from introductory contract law clairifies your lack of knowledge about professional teacher contracts.

You really think there was something illegal like this in her contract? :lamo


Contract Law - An Introduction
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/contract_law.html

In order to be enforceable, a contract cannot violate "public policy". For example, if the subject matter of a contract is illegal, you cannot enforce the contract. A contract for the sale of illegal drugs, for example, violates public policy and is not enforceable.
Please note that public policy can shift. Traditionally, many states refused to honor gambling debts incurred in other jurisdictions on public policy grounds. However, as more and more states have permitted gambling within their own borders, that policy has mostly been abandoned and gambling debts from legal enterprises are now typically enforceable. (A "bookie" might not be able to enforce a debt arising from an illegal gambling enterprise, but a legal casino will now typically be able to enforce its debt.) Similarly, it used to be legal to sell "switchblade kits" through the U.S. mail, but that practice is now illegal. Contracts for the interstate sale of such kits were no longer enforceable following that change in the law.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060439126 said:
Not sure I'm following you. What do you mean she was "given the green light to proceed?" Her supervisor told her it was OK to have the procedure done, or her supervisor told her she could take time off work when she requested time off to have the procedure done?
From the news account I heard, she approached her supervisor and advised her supervisor of her intentions and was told it was fine. If she was terminated after she was told it was OK to proceed, then Im fine with the firing...but believe she should be compensated. If she was told on advance that it was not in line with their beliefs and her actions could result in her termination and she still made the choice, then...well...thats her choice.

I disagree with the church's position, but respect their right to have it.
 
Just because you've had a bad experience doesn't mean you can sit in judgement on others beliefs. .

I actually don't care what others believe. Just don't make laws that inflict your religion on me and I'm fine.
 
How do you whether she wants to a Catholic or not or whether she wants to work for a Catholic organisation or not? Those thing are entirely irrelevant to this discussion anyway. If you don't want people to be able to sue employers over discrimination because you think that's taking "choice" away from the employers, then start a petition to repeal the statute. It doesn't change the fact there is a law against employer discrimination, and the Catholic Church is not above the Law. Whether there's a disability or whether the exceptions include teachers is something for the court to decide, not you.

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.



"The 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.". I'm sure you read this before, since it is what the thread is all about, but incase you missed it.

She had a "choice" she chose to work for the Catholic diocese.
 
I actually don't care what others believe. Just don't make laws that inflict your religion on me and I'm fine.


Since I don't have a "religion" except "Billy's Religion", I won't.

And I'm not looking for converts or members. :2razz:
 
Do you feel that way about the priests - that when they molest children, every Catholics also molest those children since they are all "the Church"?

Uh, no.

I personally dislike the rules, the policies, the teachings and the people who set those things. There's a distinct difference between members and institutions, when the Catholic Church conducted the Inquisition, I believe that most Catholics are innocent of those atrocities, and some were victims themselves.

I'm not a big fan of the Catholic church's teachings either.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060439588 said:
Quoting from introductory contract law clairifies your lack of knowledge about professional teacher contracts.

Another red herring. What does "professional teacher contracts" has to do with her case? Do you know that her contract was exactly the " "professional teacher contract"? The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission seems to think she has a case, and they are the ones who looked at her contract and her employment situation.

Or maybe you just don't understand what the case is really about.

You really think there was something illegal like this in her contract? :lamo

As I have made it clear a few times, it's not mine or your place to determined whether there's something illegal in the contract, it's for the justice system to do so, and that's why she sued.
 
Uh, no.



I'm not a big fan of the Catholic church's teachings either.

But the point is that there is a difference between members and institutions. Not all Catholics are fools like those in charge of the Catholic Church. There are good reasons to dislike the Church, and still like some people who happen to be Catholics.
 
"The 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.". I'm sure you read this before, since it is what the thread is all about, but incase you missed it.

She had a "choice" she chose to work for the Catholic diocese.

Sure she had a choice, which is not in dispute, the thread is about whether the Catholic Church can fire her for using In-vitro fertilisation. The fact that you still refers to her contract suggests to me you still don't understand what the case is about despite my taking the effort to paste what a contract consists of so everyone can understand. My suggestion is that you educate yourself about that instead of repeating the same stupid irrelevant arguement.
 
But the point is that there is a difference between members and institutions. Not all Catholics are fools like those in charge of the Catholic Church. There are good reasons to dislike the Church, and still like some people who happen to be Catholics.

Well, of course. I didn't say he hated all Catholics, but he does clearly hate some. I don't hate them, I just think some of their beliefs are kooky and not part of Scripture.
 
Sure she had a choice, which is not in dispute, the thread is about whether the Catholic Church can fire her for using In-vitro fertilisation. The fact that you still refers to her contract suggests to me you still don't understand what the case is about despite my taking the effort to paste what a contract consists of so everyone can understand. My suggestion is that you educate yourself about that instead of repeating the same stupid irrelevant arguement.



So if I sign a contract with "Yada Company" and then decide that I no longer want to adhere to the contract, I can walk away and the courts will side with me? This what you're telling me is going to happen in this case, yes?
 
Well, of course. I didn't say he hated all Catholics, but he does clearly hate some.

Oh yes you most certainly did say that. I said I hated "The Church" to which you responded with this pap.

The people are the church.


And then as if that wasn't stupid enough, you threw this inane comment in for good measure.


Or... do you hate the building? That's weird.

Honestly, who do you think you're kidding here?
 
And then as if that wasn't stupid enough, you threw this inane comment in for good measure.
Not so fast. The people are the church, so I'd suggest you choose better words next time when stating you hate something. Be concise.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060439483 said:
The teacher fired had a contract; I guarantee that.
Um, that is not in dispute...but go on..


You really think her contract violated any law? Not a snowballs chance in Hell.
Swing and a miss, strike two...



The teacher violated the tenets of the contract according to the school, which acknowledged by the legal article I posted earlier, is not in her favor.
There are no "tenets" in an employment contract, only terms.

Look, I going to explain this one more time.

In an employment, a contract is only as good as goes. The problem is not the contract, the problem is the action by the diocese. Their actions must be LEGAL. The question at hand is whether their action of firing Herx, due to how she became pregnant, was legal. Now what makes the diocese believe they have a legal right to fire this employee is the protection that the ministerial exception gives to religious organizations.

Now if any secular employer tried to fire Herx for her becoming pregnant, they would be in violation of Title VII of the civil rights act, since a contract does not allow an employer to violate federal and state laws with an employee.
Title VII's broad prohibitions against sex discrimination specifically cover:

Sexual Harassment - This includes practices ranging from direct requests for sexual favors to workplace conditions that create a hostile environment for persons of either gender, including same sex harassment. (The "hostile environment" standard also applies to harassment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, age, and disability.)
Pregnancy Based Discrimination - Pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions must be treated in the same way as other temporary illnesses or conditions.
Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination: Questions And Answers

So again, the question comes down to whether the court will broaden the ministerial exception to secular, non-religious, lit teachers working at a catholic school.





Sorry but I'm afraid its game over for her whether you believe it or not.
The court will make that decision, but you really need to understand that a contract does not allow an employer to violate federal and state laws with an employee.
 
Back
Top Bottom