Pregnant Woman Allegedly Fired For Premarital Sex, Sues Christian School

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Rich Douglas, Mar 3, 2013.

Loading...
  1. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    A woman working at a WASC-accredited, religious-affiliated school was fired when asked if she was pregnant (she was not married). The woman had signed a conduct agreement saying she wouldn't engage in pre-marital sex (among other things), and was fired on that basis. She's suing the school, San Diego Christian College.

    In an interesting twist, the school subsequently hired her baby daddy!

    The story also notes other such cases in the court system:

    Teri James, Pregnant Woman Allegedly Fired For Premarital Sex, Sues Christian School

    My take: the school is a tertiary institution, not a church. They don't have the right to impose this on their employees. It doesn't matter that she signed that document--it's coercive and it violates her civil rights. And WASC--along with the other RAs--shouldn't accredit schools that behave like this.

    If you're going to act like a college, then be a college. Treat your employees legally. If you want to be a church, be a church and require your church employees to obey any (otherwise legal) doctrine you choose.
     
  2. sumtuck

    sumtuck New Member

    I personally take a more agnostic approach to religion so do not feel a person should be punished for behavior outside of work that does not effect the quality of the person's job or in some way harm the employer. With that said, however, certain employers have very strict beliefs and require their employees follow a similar belief system in order to preserve the integrity of the institution. Say for example there was an all woman college and one of the female students after being admitted decided to get a sex change. Not only would the institution have to great separate bathrooms and such in their dormitories but the student's anatomy no longer lines up with the core foundation and principles of the institution (I should note I am not trying to start a lively debate on this specific issue. I have no idea if all woman colleges still exist and if they do how they would handle such an instance).

    From my personal religious beliefs, the whole idea of punishing someone for having sex sounds asinine. However, I can understand the institution's view point and can see how they would want to protect and preserve their integrity and core beliefs.
     
  3. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    On what grounds is she suing?

    Religious education has existed for as long as there's been education. Even today, many schools and colleges exist to teach religious subjects, and/or to teach more secular subjects in an atmosphere that's informed by religious values and practice.

    Why not?

    Do you believe that schools have the right to impose any kind of behavioral norms on their faculty, staff or students? What about politically-inspired norms? Are these acceptable (or even desirable), while religiously-inspired norms are out of line and intolerable?

    My own view is that state-run schools, funded by and therefore representative of the entire community, should for that reason be 'big-tents'. They should be as inclusive as possible and impose only those behavioral and doctrinal norms that are necessary to preserve peace, order and the integrity of the educational mission. But private colleges and universities probably should be allowed broader discretion in choosing a particular mission or philosophy that they want to emphasize.

    Aren't you trying to impose your own will, and your own choice of values, on San Diego Christian College?

    Why shouldn't the public welcome a broad and diverse variety of schools, embodying a whole range of philosophies and values, and then allow prospective students and employees the freedom to make their own decisions about which schools might be most suitable for them personally?

    WASC seems be be quite tolerant in these matters, as I believe they should be. They are willing to accredit theologically conservative evangelical colleges, just as they are also willing to accredit places that choose to be politically and culturally critical for very different reasons. I applaud WASC for that open-mindedness.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 3, 2013
  4. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    I met a man once who attended West Point. He told me that they were forced to sign an agreement every year stating quite a number of things, including the fact that they were not married. He told me that he actually became married sometime during his senior year and because he did not want to lie by signing the pledge he was not allowed to graduate.

    I can't say for sure that the story is true but if it is then it indicates that a school can, in fact, set restrictions on their students. If you don't like the rules then you can go elsewhere. I may disagree with this practice but I can't see that it's illegal.
     
  5. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    I agree with Kizmet. On the other hand, their freedom to behave regressively doesn't immunize them from the public ridicule they deserve -- particularly for hypocritically hiring the baby daddy.
     
  6. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    Steve: "...particularly for hypocritically hiring the baby daddy..."

    Do we assume that women must pledge not to have pre-marital sex, but men are not required to? Therein may lie the grounds for illegal action on the part of the school.
     
  7. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    A secular school would not get away with firing a single woman who became pregnant.

    Schools are not churches. They are, however, employers. They should be held to that standard. That's the basis for these lawsuits.

    WASC should not accredit schools that practice this kind of discriminatory behavior.

    If you want to run a church, fine. If you want to impose your rules in that church fine (within legal limits, which this may not be, btw). Even then, being a church doesn't immunize your church from the law (see the Catholics and Amish for details on that).

    But if you want to run a business, you should be held to the same standards as any other. This is true whether you're running a school, a day care, or a car wash.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 3, 2013
  8. JWC

    JWC New Member

    This is a clear illustration of why the separation of church and state is so important in this country. Religious institutions of higher learning should NEVER become accredited by ANY organization that has USDoE recognition. In this particular case, the school violated her constitutional and civil rights.
     
  9. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    And why not?
     
  10. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    And who would accredit religious schools if not an accrediting agency that has USDE recognition? There are three major accrediting agencies for religious schools in this country. They are the Association fior Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (ATS), the Association for Biblical Higher Education (ABHE), and the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS). All three of these accrediting agencies have recognition from the United States Department of Education. So, by your line of so-called reasoning, even the three major religious accreditors in this country shouldn't be allowed to accredit religious schools.
     
  11. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    This is a wonderful point. I think WASC has every reason to want to accredit this school and others like it. But I feel their standards should exclude this kind of discrimination.

    I don't know if what the school did was illegal. In my opinion, it was wrong. But those are two entirely different things. I would just like them held to the same rules and standards of other employers.
     
  12. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    I might be wrong, but I think that religious organizations have the right to insist that employees live up to the lifestyle expectations of that particular religion. And she did sign a contract. Further, while it may seem hypocritical of them to hire the baby's daddy after firing the woman, he had not yet signed a contract promising not to engage in premarital sex. That having been said, I do feel very sorry for the woman. I kind of wonder whether the individual(s) involved in the decision to fire her had taken into account that forgiveness is a Christian virtue. WWJD?
     
  13. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I might be wrong, but we're talking about a school, not a church. I doubt the school will be considered part of the church.

    As for the contract, if it has an illegal objective, it's not a contract. And I'm pretty sure requiring someone to refrain from sex, while certainly a covenant of the church, is not a legal objective, one of the 5 basic elements required for a contract to be valid. (The other four seem to be in place: offer, acceptance, consideration, and legal capacity.)

    IMHO, she's going to win on the merits, if she sticks it out. But what I find interesting is not the religious issue, but whether or not it extends to hiring lay people for non-religious activity. And whether or not the accrediting association should accredit a school that behaves this way towards its employees (and, presumably, towards its students).

    If you want to be a church, be a church. But when you're not, you're not. And I can't imagine anyone would tolerate this outside a church. And that's what a university is.

    I hope she collects big-time.
     
  14. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    I do too but my amateurish understanding of the law makes me think she won't get a dime. Hopefully, once again I'll be wrong.
     
  15. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    This just might be the crux of the issue. Is the school a part of the church, or is the school a separate organization that is run by the church? Also, how can such a distinction be made and be consistently applied to all religious schools?

    Religion needs to keep its hands out of politics, business and just about anything that isn't itself religious or charitable in nature. It's what Jesus would do :sasmokin:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 4, 2013
  16. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    But the standard you are referring to -- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act -- has a couple of major exemptions for religious organizations (which include religious schools). And the Supreme Court greatly strengthened those exemptions last year:

    If the teacher in question led children in prayer, or gave them religious instruction, or performed any other religious duties as part of her job, then the school can legally claim that she acted as a "minister" (even if she is not actually ordained), and that her employment falls under the "ministerial exception". And under the "ministerial exception", a religious organization (which could include a school) can fire a "minister" for virtually any reason. Anti-discrimination laws go out the window.

    The logic here goes back to the separation of church and state. Religious organizations are free to hire or fire anyone, as they see fit, to perform religious duties (which could include religious teaching). The government can't override the judgement of a religious organization when it comes to the performance of religious duties.

    I don't necessarily agree with this interpretation, but that's the opinion of the Supreme Court. And their opinion matters, while mine (and yours) don't.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 4, 2013
  17. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Good points. We seem to have several issues here.

    Is the school an extension of the church?

    If it is, should the accreditors impose their standards?

    Should their standards disallow this form of discrimination?

    Would her duties be considered part of the ministry?

    Did she sign a legal and binding contract regarding the behavior in question?

    Is what they did legal? Again, the Catholics and Amish are facing scandals stemming from behavior that is illegal and not protected. You can't commit a crime or a tort and use the First Amendment as a shield.
     
  18. Petedude

    Petedude New Member

    A gal I knew once was irked by a job she'd applied to-- they'd actually had the gall to ask (memory fails, not sure if it was the interview or the application) if the applicant had engaged in premarital sex. It was a small Christian camp outfit in the mountains, and it would have been close to where she lived at the time but their self-righteous attitude drove her away.

    I couldn't say I blamed her. I would have been peeved too, even though I was raised in a conservative Christian household myself. I felt it was a bit too much on the judgmental side for them to take that approach.
     
  19. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Ditto here.
     
  20. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    Just to show how the rules are different at religious schools, consider the following two examples, both from Wheaton College (in Illinois). Wheaton is probably the oldest (est. 1860) and most prestigious Evangelical school in the US, and is regionally accredited.

    - In 2005, Wheaton fired a philosophy professor because he converted to Catholicism.

    - In 2008, Wheaton demanded that an English professor explain the reasons for his divorce (because only certain grounds for divorce are deemed biblically acceptable). He refused, and then resigned rather than face firing.

    Now in any secular job, there is no way you could be fired for changing religions. Nor could you be fired for refusing to discuss your divorce.

    But if your employer is a religious organization -- including a religious school -- the rules are different. Wheaton can do those kinds of things, and they faced no legal challenges in either case. And the Supreme Court has only strengthened their position since then.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 4, 2013

Share This Page