Another teacher fired from a religious school

[Racket_Man]

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/fired-teacher-jarretta-hamilton-shocked-by-principals-maternity-query/19515382?icid=main|hp-desktop|dl1|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fn ation%2Farticle%2Ffired-teacher-jarretta-hamilton-shocked-by-principals-maternity-query%2F19515382

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/florida-christian-school-dismisses-teacher-jarretta-hamilton-for-fornication/19509791

two links about the same story. basically widowed teacher has sex with her now hubby 3 weeks before they were married and conceives (unknow to her at that time). woman give births and goes into the school administration to request leave. bright admin questions when the baby was born and figures out that the teacher must have had "pre-martial" sex. the teacher admits to this "indiscression". teacher swiftly fired for "not following outside of work" policies.

now here is the kicker: School then announces to the whole world (all of the teacher's students AND PARENTS) why she was terminated

Ok I get some of the restrictive policies that religious schools have on their staff. but how far can they go???? esp if it may violate confidential information or things that happen outside of "work". Yeah I get we all have signed some sort of form in our work lives that have restrictions for "on the job" type stuff but how far can even a religious organization go to mandate out of work behavior.

but apparently the teacher claims she was not made fully aware of these restrictive "policies" and claims she was not under formal contract with the school.

[draggar]

I think she has one hell of a lawsuit against the "school".

Besides - what is this school teaching the children if they're this strict?

[Boozy]

The school is saying that she agreed to their conditions of employment. The teacher is saying that she never signed a contract.

Unless the school can present a piece of paper with this particular policy on it, with the teacher's signature, then I don't think they're going to win. Regular anti-discrimination laws would apply.

[fireheart17]

The school is saying that she agreed to their conditions of employment. The teacher is saying that she never signed a contract.

Unless the school can present a piece of paper with this particular policy on it, with the teacher's signature, then I don't think they're going to win. Regular anti-discrimination laws would apply.

there's actually been a huge talk down under about religious schools being allowed to refuse employment to gay people.

Thankfully most of the whingers on the AdelaideNow website see some common sense on that one and have pointed out that if they are going to restrict them, that the schools get ZERO funding from the government.

[AdminAssistant]

Unless the school can present a piece of paper with this particular policy on it, with the teacher's signature, then I don't think they're going to win. Regular anti-discrimination laws would apply.

Not only that, but she could probably tack on some extra for the embarrassment, suffering, and loss of reputation from the school announcing the reason behind the termination. At every place I've worked, the reason behind a termination was always confidential.

[Hobbs]

Hmm, I don't see how she could have been hired without signing a contract. Unless private schools work differently in their hiring policies. However, if their policy does state that, then they have the right to do so, no matter how backwards one must think it. It's called freedom of religion, not "freedom to not be offended." I kind of see it from a government point of view; if you screw up, pretty much everyone will learn about it, and they don't have to keep things confidential if it's deemed to be in the best interest not to be.

[draggar]

The letter said she agreed in her job application to uphold the school's values.

Talk about vague. Were these values spelled out somewhere word for word?

[Greenday]

Hmm, I don't see how she could have been hired without signing a contract. Unless private schools work differently in their hiring policies. However, if their policy does state that, then they have the right to do so, no matter how backwards one must think it. It's called freedom of religion, not "freedom to not be offended." I kind of see it from a government point of view; if you screw up, pretty much everyone will learn about it, and they don't have to keep things confidential if it's deemed to be in the best interest not to be.

Private schools are, for all intents and purposes, businesses and should be treated as such in the eyes of the law. It's been deemed you can't fire someone from a business for this kind of reason. Freedom of religion is a personal protection, not a protection for businesses. Unless they actually have a signature on a piece of paper that states that she will not commit such conduct and they have a list of conduct that is unacceptable, the school is screwed and rightfully so.

Plus the school had no right to announce to the world why they fired her.

[AdminAssistant]

Plus the school had no right to announce to the world why they fired her.

This times a million. What the woman did in her personal life has no bearing on her ability to perform her job. This school apparently sought to punish a sinner by tarnishing her reputation to make it more difficult for her to find work (hang on, isn't there something about sinners and stones in the New Testament?) After all, she's a sinner! She might corrupt the children! :rolleyes:

[jackfaire]

I almost took a job that would have required me to be in church every sunday.

Any business can fire anyone for violating the policies however at least in my state it is illegal for a business to tell anyone else (with the exception of Unemployment department) why they were let go, fired whatever.

All they can do is state what the dates of employment were and that the person did in fact work there. If that is the case in her area then she should at least be able to sue for that.

[Boozy]

Hmm, I don't see how she could have been hired without signing a contract.

I agree, and I'd be pretty surprised if there wasn't a signed contract. The question is whether or not there is a clause that specfically prohibits sex outside of marriage.

I doubt it. I suspect there's either a bit about "upholding the school's values", which can be interpreted in various ways, or nothing at all.

Besides, I don't know how employment law works in her state, but we have certain laws here that over-ride any and all contracts. You simply cannot sign away certain rights here in Ontario. A clause that unduly restricts an employee's freedom outside of the workplace may be considered unlawful, and that clause would be null-and-void.

[fireheart17]

Here's the thing to think about as well: in most situations, regardless of whatever the contract says, discrimination laws will always come first.
So if she was fired for either a) pregnancy or b) religious freedom, then she'd most likely have a case.
If the school wanted to put those sort of restrictions on its staff members, would it need to apply for an exemption? I'm just wondering as I'm aware that in Australian law, you can apply for exemptions on discriminatory measures as long as you have a damn good reason behind it.

[Hobbs]

It's a religious school, so it doesn't have to follow freedom of religion.

[Rapscallion]

It's a religious school, so it doesn't have to follow freedom of religion.

Not convinced about that. It has to follow the laws of the land. Not sure entirely about the laws over there regarding this, but if there's a special exception for religious schools then fine, but I'd be surprised if there were.

Rapscallion

[AdminAssistant]

Not convinced about that. It has to follow the laws of the land. Not sure entirely about the laws over there regarding this, but if there's a special exception for religious schools then fine, but I'd be surprised if there were.

It only works if they receive absolutely zero funding from the government. If a private school receives even one penny of federal or state money, then they are required to follow all laws and regulations.

[Hobbs]

It only works if they receive absolutely zero funding from the government. If a private school receives even one penny of federal or state money, then they are required to follow all laws and regulations.
Baylor U. recieves federal funding, but that year there I saw lots of religious intolerance/discrimination.

[Greenday]

It only works if they receive absolutely zero funding from the government. If a private school receives even one penny of federal or state money, then they are required to follow all laws and regulations.

They still have to follow constitutional laws regardless of funding.

[Hyena Dandy]

If she said she intended to 'follow the school's values' that's not enough to fire her. She has to have signed something saying she was aware of those values. Without knowing exactly where this took place, I can't say. But as far as I'm concerned, they SHOULD be allowed to fire her for anything they want, but ONLY if when she signed up she signed something that said she was aware of the school's rules.

[Hobbs]

They still have to follow constitutional laws regardless of funding.
No they don't. At Baylor, unless you're baptist, life can truly suck.

[KnitShoni]

Um, Hobbs, when did you go to Baylor? Because I have a lot of non-Baptist and non-Christian friends who went there, and they didn't experience that.

[Hobbs]

um, hobbs, when did you go to baylor? Because i have a lot of non-baptist and non-christian friends who went there, and they didn't experience that.
2003-2004.

[Kheldarson]

Having been looking at various religious schools, I can tell you guys that they have in their application packets what their moral code is. And a lot of them include the no sex outside marriage as well as essentially no questionable visitations. And a number of them indicate that yes, you have to be a regular member of some church. So I doubt this teacher didn't know the moral code of her school in detail.

That being said, school sucks for trying to get the community to shun her like that.

[Mikkel]

No they don't. At Baylor, unless you're baptist, life can truly suck.

I think that there is a difference between having to follow laws and actually following laws. Baylor may not have followed the laws but that doesn't mean they don't have to.

[Hobbs]

I think that there is a difference between having to follow laws and actually following laws. Baylor may not have followed the laws but that doesn't mean they don't have to.
They limited the right for organizations to assemble. I realize it's a private campus, but it still isn't all that great when you're one of the organizations targeted (Catholic Student Assoc.).

[Scamper]

A Religious school, not receiving any gov funding, would be allowed to fire someone for not following policies, however asinine. That being said, the school was WAY out of line for telling the community, and that would be subject to legal action.

[telecom_goddess]

I would think, as an employer, they would have to follow privacy guidelines/laws/rules whatever.....they can't just announce the reason someone was fired to the whole world. That is confidential information.

As for the reason she was fired that is one of the many reasons I do not belong to or work for a religious organization of any kind. What I do in my private life is my private business.

[Gawdzillers]

Woooooooooooooooooooooooow.

I've heard of religion being somewhat integrated into the workplace (Chik-Fil-A being closed on Sunday), but this is ridiculous.

I went to a Catholic high school that employed a lesbian Psychology teacher (and she had a life partner as well), so not all religious schools are this...ignorant? Stupid? I can't think of a suitable word.