Teacher fired for listing a partner in her mother's obituary.

[MaggieD]

An anonymous parent had written to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus, appalled that Hale had listed her female partner’s name in an obituary. Just a few days after the letter was brought to the school's attention, her employment was terminated. Hale recalls, "I was totally shocked. I mean, I think it was just one of those where everything was drained out of me."

She'd been with the school for 19 years.

According to a contract between the Columbus diocese and the Central Ohio Association of Catholic Educators, teachers can be terminated for "immorality" or "serious unethical conduct." George Jones, a spokesman for the diocese, had no comment yesterday, saying personnel matters are confidential.

Think the teacher would prevail in a lawsuit?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/skarlan/high-school-fires-teacher-after-her-partners-name-appeared-i

 

[cpwill]

An interesting and precedent setting question.

 

[Fisher]

Probably, especially if she could prove that someone higher up on the foodchain in the school knew she was shacked up with another old gal and she was fired because of a parent knowing, not the school finding out

 

[JayDubya]

Think the teacher would prevail in a lawsuit?

Not a chance. Private school.

 

[longview]

In our Political correct world, she might win.
If she works under a contract that says she cannot hang a dead squirrel around her neck,
and she does anyway, she is in violation of her contract.
The actual subject of the contract is irrelevant.

 

[MaggieD]

Not a chance. Private school.

I think it depends on the legal system's interpretation of their contract. What immoral conduct can they prove from listing her partner's name in her mother's obituary?

 

[Camlon]

I believe in fire at will with a few limitation. However that does not mean I believe they should be allowed to fire a worker for any reason. They won't need to provide evidence to fire someone, however if there is large amount of evidence they fired them for a racist/discriminatory reason, then they can still be taken to court and punished.

This is certainly one of those cases.

 

[MaggieD]

I believe in fire at will with a few limitation. However that does not mean I believe they should be allowed to fire a worker for any reason. They won't need to provide evidence to fire someone, however if there is large amount of evidence they fired them for a racist/discriminatory reason, then they can still be taken to court and punished.

This is certainly one of those cases.

I absolutely believe in fire-at-will. This woman was under contract. Different kettle of fish.

 

[HonestJoe]

If she works under a contract that says she cannot hang a dead squirrel around her neck, and she does anyway, she is in violation of her contract.

That'd be a very specific requirement though. There are two potential legal issues I see with this kind of thing. First, "immorality" or "unethical conduct" aren't clearly defined. Even within the context of Catholicism (assuming the contract even specifies it), opinions can vary greatly on the specifics on questions of morality. Legally speaking, such ambiguity goes against the author of the contract.

The second potential issue is consistency. There are loads of things traditionally considered immoral in Catholic doctrine, some of which is routinely ignored by many Catholics (birth control being the classic example). If this "immorality" by other staff has been known about yet routinely ignored by the employer, it could present legal problems with imposing the clause in this specific case.

This really represents a wider problem for such organisations. They clearly want a rule of "No gays!" (among other things) but don't want to state that openly because they know it's socially unacceptable at best, illegal at worst.

 

[Your Star]

Probably not, sadly. She shouldn't have been fired over this, we need to get rid of this kind of backward thinking.

 

[JayDubya]

I think it depends on the legal system's interpretation of their contract. What immoral conduct can they prove from listing her partner's name in her mother's obituary?

Catholic private school. Being a practicing lesbian is going to be "immoral conduct."

I'm not religious, but I know the position of the Catholic church. I bet this teacher did, too.

 

[MaggieD]

Catholic private school. Being a practicing lesbian is going to be "immoral conduct."

I'm not religious, but I know the position of the Catholic church. I bet this teacher did, too.

Think about what you're saying. Are you saying that our legal system should enforce the tenets of the Catholic Church? How about Sharia Law?

If they don't want homosexuals and gays, transvestites, whatever sexual orientation? They should have to list it. I'm betting no court in the United States would determine that having a same-sex partner is immoral. And that's what they'd be asked to do in a legal battle. Since the Catholic Church didn't define it (and they wrote the contract), it would be up to the court to decide. Shall we interpret Sharia Law next?

 

[longview]

That'd be a very specific requirement though. There are two potential legal issues I see with this kind of thing. First, "immorality" or "unethical conduct" aren't clearly defined. Even within the context of Catholicism (assuming the contract even specifies it), opinions can vary greatly on the specifics on questions of morality. Legally speaking, such ambiguity goes against the author of the contract.

The second potential issue is consistency. There are loads of things traditionally considered immoral in Catholic doctrine, some of which is routinely ignored by many Catholics (birth control being the classic example). If this "immorality" by other staff has been known about yet routinely ignored by the employer, it could present legal problems with imposing the clause in this specific case.

This really represents a wider problem for such organisations. They clearly want a rule of "No gays!" (among other things) but don't want to state that openly because they know it's socially unacceptable at best, illegal at worst.

I think the Catholic Church could defend a stance that they do not accept homosexuality as moral.
Everyone employed at the school may even have know or suspected, but when she published her status in a public forum,
She exposed herself, to the contract she agreed to.

 

[Crosscheck]

Being a private school she was aware of their policies when she signed up. She's done.

But nonetheless considering this is a Catholic school their shock of something sexually immoral is a laugh at best.

 

[Your Star]

Being a private school she was aware of their policies when she signed up. She's done.

But nonetheless considering this is a Catholic school their shock of something sexually immoral is a laugh at best.

True, I'm sure if she was molesting kids they would have just moved her to another school.

 

[cpwill]

I absolutely believe in fire-at-will. This woman was under contract. Different kettle of fish.

Catholic School. My bet would be at some point she signed some kind of Statement Of Principles She Will Agree To Teach/Adhere To/Be An Example Of/What We Believe/Etc. that was basically Catholic Doctrine. Why someone who was living with a gay partner would want to teach at a Catholic school is sort of beyond me to begin with - it's not exactly as if the Catholic Church hides it's beliefs.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

She'd been with the school for 19 years.

Think the teacher would prevail in a lawsuit?

High School Fires Teacher After Her Partner's Name Appeared In Her Mother's Obituary

According to the Ohio gov website, employees are protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation so she probably will win a lawsuit.

Department of Administrative Services > Divisions > Equal Opportunity > Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity > EEO Discrimination Complaint

 

[Slyfox696]

Catholic private school. Being a practicing lesbian is going to be "immoral conduct."

I'm not religious, but I know the position of the Catholic church. I bet this teacher did, too.

I agree completely. I think it's absurd to be fired for one's sexuality, but this is a private Catholic school and it's hard to endorse a teacher whose lifestyle violates the beliefs you are teaching.

In conclusion, I don't think anything can be done, as absurd as her firing for sexuality is.

Think about what you're saying. Are you saying that our legal system should enforce the tenets of the Catholic Church? How about Sharia Law?

If they don't want homosexuals and gays, transvestites, whatever sexual orientation? They should have to list it. I'm betting no court in the United States would determine that having a same-sex partner is immoral. And that's what they'd be asked to do in a legal battle. Since the Catholic Church didn't define it (and they wrote the contract), it would be up to the court to decide. Shall we interpret Sharia Law next? :wink:

I like your argument (though I have no idea what Sharia Law has to do with anything, an inside joke perhaps?) but I don't think it would stand. I think, if nothing else, it would turn into a 1st Amendment issue, where the state cannot tell religion how they should practice.

I agree this is ridiculous, but this is what happens when we deem religion to be untouchable.

According to the Ohio gov website, employees are protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation so she probably will win a lawsuit.

Department of Administrative Services > Divisions > Equal Opportunity > Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity > EEO Discrimination Complaint

If you keep reading, you'll see this:

The complaint of discrimination must include all of the following:

a state of Ohio employee or applicant alleging discrimation against a state agency (under the purview of the Governor's Office)
allegations involving discrimination, discriminatory harassment and/or retaliation
the discriminatory action occurred within 30 days from the date of filing a complaint

I don't think this situation applies.

 

[cpwill]

Think about what you're saying. Are you saying that our legal system should enforce the tenets of the Catholic Church?

That is not what he is saying - you are taking it a step further. He is saying that the Catholics have the right to exercise their beliefs. That does not translate to the Government has a right to stop them (the argument that she cannot be fired) any more than it translates to the argument that the government has the right to force those beliefs on non-Catholics (what you seem to be accusing him of).

How about Sharia Law?

Well, my bet would be that Mosque employees are required to uphold it, or lose their jobs. :shrug: And that is just fine, the government has no business telling mosques how they will or will not interpret and live out Islam.

If they don't want homosexuals and gays, transvestites, whatever sexual orientation? They should have to list it. I'm betting no court in the United States would determine that having a same-sex partner is immoral.

That's because courts are not here to tell us what is moral or immoral, but rather what is legal or illegal. In this case, since it was a Catholic contract, the Catholic interpretation of what was moral or immoral would be controlling.

And that's what they'd be asked to do in a legal battle. Since the Catholic Church didn't define it (and they wrote the contract), it would be up to the court to decide. Shall we interpret Sharia Law next?

No. We shall leave that to the Mosques and their chosen leadership. Just as Catholics should be left to determine their faith on their own, without the State imposing itself upon their decision making processes or associations.

 

[MaggieD]

I think the Catholic Church could defend a stance that they do not accept homosexuality as moral.
Everyone employed at the school may even have know or suspected, but when she published her status in a public forum,
She exposed herself, to the contract she agreed to.

Are the courts to enforce "Catholic Law"? If a courtroom doesn't find having a same-sex partner immoral, I say they won't enforce the contract. Think about it guys. Do we enforce Catholic precepts in our courtrooms? Or legal precepts? Do we enforce what Catholics think is immoral? What Muslims think is immoral? Can of worms here, I'm tellin' ya'.

To avoid problems, this school should have simply waited for her contract to expire and then not renew it. I think this school loses in a court of law. And I hope she gets an offer of free representation. Time for a precedent to be set, in my opinion.

 

[JayDubya]

Think about what you're saying. Are you saying that our legal system should enforce the tenets of the Catholic Church?

Not at all, I don't see how this is a legal matter at all. It's a private school; they can fire her. You asked if she could win a lawsuit or something; I said no. I don't view her losing a lawsuit as the court "enforcing the tenets of a church." The church enforced the tenets of the church, they fired her. Whether or not you or I as private citizens find her firing distasteful or frivolous is neither here nor there - such things matter a great deal to her former employer.

If they don't want homosexuals and gays, transvestites, whatever sexual orientation? They should have to list it.

They should probably list specifically or somewhere exhaustively explain what that clause means, yes.

 

[longview]

Think about what you're saying. Are you saying that our legal system should enforce the tenets of the Catholic Church? How about Sharia Law?

If they don't want homosexuals and gays, transvestites, whatever sexual orientation? They should have to list it. I'm betting no court in the United States would determine that having a same-sex partner is immoral. And that's what they'd be asked to do in a legal battle. Since the Catholic Church didn't define it (and they wrote the contract), it would be up to the court to decide. Shall we interpret Sharia Law next?

MaggieD, I respect your words and opinions in many things,
but here I think there may be a real difference between legal morality,
and contract morality.
A morality employment contract could specify the drinking of alcohol as immoral, the drinking itself may be very legal, but could still be cause to break the contract.
It may also very by state, I don't know about Ohio.

 

[MaggieD]

According to the Ohio gov website, employees are protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation so she probably will win a lawsuit.

Department of Administrative Services > Divisions > Equal Opportunity > Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity > EEO Discrimination Complaint

Thanks for this. I looked at their state's civil rights act and didn't see it . . . I hope the later poster is incorrect that it only applies to state employees. That's be wrong, imo.

That is not what he is saying - you are taking it a step further. He is saying that the Catholics have the right to exercise their beliefs. That does not translate to the Government has a right to stop them (the argument that she cannot be fired) any more than it translates to the argument that the government has the right to force those beliefs on non-Catholics (what you seem to be accusing him of).



Well, my bet would be that Mosque employees are required to uphold it, or lose their jobs. :shrug: And that is just fine, the government has no business telling mosques how they will or will not interpret and live out Islam.

That's because courts are not here to tell us what is moral or immoral, but rather what is legal or illegal. In this case, since it was a Catholic contract, the Catholic interpretation of what was moral or immoral would be controlling.

No. We shall leave that to the Mosques and their chosen leadership. Just as Catholics should be left to determine their faith on their own, without the State imposing itself upon their decision making processes or associations.

I think I could make a good argument in a court of law that you're wrong. If, by immoral, the Catholic Church means anything that goes against the tenets of the Catholic Church, then that's how the contract should be written. Look, they could have simply let the contract expire (it's probably a year), and not renewed it. They chose not to do it that way. I think they were dead wrong.

Not at all, I don't see how this is a legal matter at all. It's a private school; they can fire her. You asked if she could win a lawsuit or something; I said no. I don't view her losing a lawsuit as the court "enforcing the tenets of a church." The church enforced the tenets of the church, they fired her. Whether or not you or I as private citizens find her firing distasteful or frivolous is neither here nor there - such things matter a great deal to her former employer.

They should probably list specifically or somewhere exhaustively explain what that clause means, yes.

It wouldn't have to be exhaustive at all. They would merely have to specifically spell out that immorality is decided by the tenets of the Catholic Church.

As an aside, I think it's backwards of Ohio that they don't have "sexual discrimination" listed within their Civil Rights Act.

 

[madman]

She'd been with the school for 19 years.



Think the teacher would prevail in a lawsuit?

High School Fires Teacher After Her Partner's Name Appeared In Her Mother's Obituary

It's a religious school. They have those F'kd up fairytale rules to follow.
Religion: a disguise for "allowable" hatred.

 

[MaggieD]

MaggieD, I respect your words and opinions in many things,
but here I think there may be a real difference between legal morality,
and contract morality.
A morality employment contract could specify the drinking of alcohol as immoral, the drinking itself may be very legal, but could still be cause to break the contract.
It may also very by state, I don't know about Ohio.

Thank you, Longview. You can tell I feel very strongly about this issue. A good teacher lost because her partner's name was listed in her mother's obituary. I say "good teacher," because the students have gathered a petition with over 11,000 signatures to have her reinstated. And because it's high time homosexuals got a fair shake. It could be that I need to take the "long view," however.

(In your example, they specifically defined immorality as the drinking of alcohol. You'll admit that's a bit different?)