Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Salty, Jun 9, 2010.
School teacher looses her job in Florida after getting pregnant.
Is the school right or wrong
Well....yes and no.
If she didn't get pregnant until three weeks before she married, then it would be hard pressed for a person who is not her or her husband to make predictions of conception once she announced her pregnancy or started showing weeks later.
I have no idea how that awkward conversation in the principal's office went. It seems a little bit Big-Brotherish.
If she signed a contract with a morality clause and she violated that clause, then she is to be fired. End of story. No law suit. No complaint from her.
The school was right to fire her, but not right to disclose the information.
They were right to fire her but should have respected her privacy.
Thank goodness somebody in this world still has some sanity.
Yes, they should have fired her.
She violated the morality clause she agreed to upon employment. That is grounds for the school to fire her.
The article didn't say whether or not she was repentant, but if she was, I think the school should not have fired her. From the way the article was worded, it sounds like she went to the staff and admitted her sin.
Rewording the question slightly, the school was not morally wrong in firing her. Would they have been morally wrong to keep her as a teacher? No! However, that is left to the administrators.
Someone mentioned the aspect of the lady's privacy. This is where I struggle. Yes, in a business sense, details of her private information could be justification for a lawsuit. However, this is tough to prove as she would have had to tell someone in order for the news to "get out." The lawyers on the other side may only have to prove that others knew about the information from the teacher and it was becoming or was common knowledge. Secondly, if this is a school under the authority of a church, situations like these where the teacher is unrepentant must go through the proper church disciplinary measures which includes "telling it to the church." In this case, her "right to privacy" is not protected.
However, the article does not even come close to conveying this was a church discipline issue.
Yet, the administrators should have merely stated that they elected to not retain the employee any longer.
Being fired for a moral reason is a tricky issue to win on, especially if she signed some kind of contract with a morals clause in it. What the school is going to get in trouble for, if anything, is disclosing the details of her firing to parents and coworkers. That is a HUGE no-no and hard to defend because in the law there isn't any grey area on this issue.
If Christian Church members had to sign a morality clause many local congregations could not pay their utility bills.
They may not need to pay the utility bill, ... if there is enough "heat" already...
I don't think we are getting the whole story but even at that there should have been (and probably was) a better to resolve this than "airing the laundry" via the press.
Now everyone is stigmatized.
I don't think we have enough facts about this situation to offer a complete and solid pronouncement.
That being said, let's think about the purpose of the morality clause. It is to make sure that those associated with the school maintain and present an outward witness to the standards it desires to most present.
If the teacher was making a big deal out of how her child was...*ahem*...3 weeks premature, then there might be an issue. If she hadn't, there would have been no conceivable (couldn't resist) way anyone else could have known conclusively and, in the ensuing years it would become less of an issue.
Here's the fact - the teacher screwed up in a very personal and private manner which resulted in a not-so-private consequence. But is it likely to have an effect on the outward witness of the school? Not so sure about that.
Of course, since the school sent their prying eyes into the matter, it's a moot point.
Seems like some are saying that we ought to have a don't ask, don't tell arrangement. She freely admits that they were immoral before their wedding. So if the school allows her to continue teaching, they are putting their mark of approval on what she did.
With that said, they should not have made it public. They could have simply refused to renew her contract.
Exactly, before Joseph knew the whole story...
Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
This isn't about church membership. It is about employment by an organization teaching children how to think and how to live, and violating the standards of the employer.
They were right to fire her. They had no other choice, really. As for privacy, hard to keep that a secret for very long. And unless they are very bad at teaching math, the school family was going to know very soon that the child was conceived out of wedlock.
This is a no-brainer.
I did work at a school where a man was released from his contract for having a beer in public when the contract explicitly said no drinking. It is difficult to make judgement calls when we don't know the whole situation, but when working with kids in a Christian setting, I think the standards have to be closely adhered to. There can be repentance, there can be forgiveness, but there are certainly consequences even with the former. I don't think that job loss is the only available consequence, but it is a legitimate one.
Must be non-union schools.
I would be interested to know exactly what the standards set forth by the school are.
I think a pregnancy, especially if the woman is now married, is a different case. The beer issue is a different case. I personally think it's legalistic, but if I had signed such a statement and they was caught with it in public, well, that's a pretty blatant infraction.
The pregnancy, not so much.
I thought it was legalistic too. The contract just said don't drink. It didn't say what the consequences were for drinking. I thought of at least a dozen others that would have let the world know they were serious about contracts and would have allowed him to keep his job. He was excellent at what he did. This particular incident is one of the reasons I am no longer at that school.
I also thought of alternatives for this young lady, but again, not knowing exactly what she signed, it's hard to make a call. I do think that no longer working there may be in her favor