I think the school over-reacted. Badly. The compassionate thing to do would be to allow her to keep her job and continue teaching. This was an unfortunate decision, but perhaps this can be resolved without getting the knuckleheads from the ACLU involved too deeply.
Ditto. I'm sure that Ms. McCusker would be more than happy to have her job back and be left alone.
Or, at the very least, guarantee her health insurance until the birth of her child or until she finds another job.
What if they stand firm in their decision? If they gave her nothing and dismissed her would you THEN support the ACLU's involvement?
I'm pretty sure the answer was "b" just going on general teaching that it would be wrong to do so, period.
My question: Would this sort of behavioral stipulation have been a standard item for anyone entering employment with this employer?
They did overreact a bit, but by the same token they should have had some reaction. Could they have continued coverage based on the circumstances? Possibly. No matter what she would have had to stop teaching based on what the rules of her employment were, if indeed there was groundwork laid upon being hired. I'm not an expert in labor law, so I'll stop now...
As wrong as the decision is, I don't think either her or the ACLU would have a legal leg to stand on. She probably (in fact I think it has been reported that she did) have a morals clause in her contract. Further, the school is a private school. But this decision opens the door for the ACLU to walk on, and with the Courts the way they are, you never know. And that's why the school's decision is doubly stupid.
That last one was me.
Howabout a mandatory chasity belt for all female employees of Catholic institutions--that will teach those lil' harlots... Not sure what to do about the men though.
I'm pretty sure if a male teacher knocked up his girlfriend (or casual contact/fling), the same choice would come forth - marry up or get a new job. Point is, that's a choice too.
That being said, there still needs to be proof in any such case, and well, gee, there's some proof right there about not "convey(ing) the teachings of the Catholic faith by his or her words and actions." as is being reported.
Not a shocker - most companies have some sort of morals or conduct clause, with penalty of termination for violation, so I don't see the legal leg for her to stand on either.
I'd bet good money that upwards of 50% younger or middle-aged employees of Catholic institutions would be out of a job if this "policy" was actually enforced.
The "legal leg", to the extent there could be one, would likely be tied to the receipt of federal funds, or state I suppose, or lack thereof, received by the school. Barring its use of any government funds, the school can continue to openly discriminate on the basis of "religious" grounds as it so chooses. And I mean this in all seriouness, based on the his teachings and the message of what is otherwise taught in the bible--forgiveness, tolerance and all that, what would Jesus have done?
Well, I didn't say it would be easy to follow such a path as defined by words an actions. Doing that consistently in any faith is not supposed to be easy. But if you're looking for people who do indeed live by example, then this incident would probably be pretty contrary to the example that the school and parents would want to see set for its students.
As the school is a private school, it may not receive any such funds so it would not have to deal with government stepping in to prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Let me give you some perspective, from one who actually teaches at a Catholic institution.
ALL teaching contracts, for all levels elementary through graduate, have a "moral turpitude" clause. SO, getting pregnant out of wedlock, cohabitating, stripping, drug use, etc., are considered issues involving moral turpitude, and thus actionable -- i.e., you can get fired. If you openly teach things that contravene Catholic dogma -- birth control, homosexuality, abortion -- you can get canned. (There was a case out in CA a few weeks ago, where a drama teacher at St. Rose of Lima was volunteering as an escort at a Planned Parenthood was fired for her actions.)
She would have had to read her contract (one would assume) before signing it. She would have been aware of the morals clause.
Sorry, but she and the ACLU can go blow on this one. She can pick up a job in a secular school if she doesn't like it.
But A. Nonny, you don't seriously expect a Catholic school to uphold Catholic teachings, now do you? Being moral is hard.
Thank you for your perspective. Good points.
Sorry, there should have been a -end sarcasm- tag in that big space up there.
I believe, technically, that " is HARD" is more /Barbie voice than /sarc.
paul said: "Or, at the very least, guarantee her health insurance until the birth of her child or until she finds another job."
Actually, the school offered to provide her with medical coverage through August 2006, and she refused.
Commenting by HaloScan
