Pregnant Woman Allegedly Fired For Premarital Sex, Sues Christian School

Good counter-examples. The current cases challenge this thinking.

 

Employment discrimination is not my specialty, but I know enough to be dangerous, as they say. Here's my quick take on how this will most likely go.

While some rules are different when it comes to religious employers, it doesn't look like this will insulate the school here. Religious or not, the school cannot discriminate against the woman because she is a woman, or more specifically an unmarried pregnant woman. The article states that the father of her child was hired for the same job (which was as a financial aid specialist and not a ministerial position) while she was let go. This looks like where the school went wrong. Even though they were similarly situated, they were treated differently. Such disparate treatment provides prima facie evidence that there was an unlawful motive on the school's part. The school can bring forth evidence of a non-discriminatory motive and a jury will decide. I don't have all the facts, but my guess is that plaintiff is in decent shape here.

 

While I do not know the full history of this case, it is possible the school did not know the guy they hired was the father of the child to the woman they just fired. Asking "did you impregnate a current female employee recently" would be quite the odd question on an application.

I do agree it is a double standard but I guess the only reason it is easier to fire women is because they are visibly pregnant, something they cannot deny at a certain point in pregnancy. Whereas with a man they cannot prove he is the father (in old times there was no way to prove it, now we have DNA).

 

The school most certainly didn't know the man's connection to the fired employee, or it probably wouldn't have offered him the job. And it's the double standard part that makes this a potential unlawful discharge.

 

And here lies the crux of your argument. A school operates as a business, and must comply with rules and regulations that any other employer follows. This pertains to things like non discrimination, hiring people who may or may not be religious, ensuring staff take their breaks and lunches, etc.

I don't have much time to post anymore because I work with a state sponsored program that provides workshops and classes for employers ranging from small to large. This program involves labor attorneys who basically teach employer how not to get sued - to be blunt. Employers that attend include a couple of religious schools. These religious schools operate as a business - not a church.

Last year we heard about religious schools being forced to provide contraception care to their employees. The fact is, nobody has forced religious schools to contain contraception care in their healthcare package. Contraception is needed by many women as part of their healthcare, having nothing to do with becoming pregnant or not.

Enough of that. I leave the legal citations and labor violations to the attorneys. My opinion is that the school will settle out of court and end this quietly. Making an employee of a business, not a church, sign something to the effect of not having sex outside of marriage is bullshite.

Abner

 

In another thread on Liberty University, the OP published a link to the Washington Post's article on Liberty University. Jerry Fallwell Jr., the founder's son, had this to say about Liberty and it's history:

“We’re not the Moral Majority anymore,” Falwell said, referring to the religious conservative movement his father founded. “We’re not a church. Our mission is to educate.”

Not a church, indeed.

(Fallwell Jr. is a graduate of Liberty and holds a JD from UVA.)