"Teacher Fired For Being Pregnant"

[Eric J in MN]

http://www.10tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4153913&nav=LUESMuat

A discrimination complaint has been filed against a New York Catholic school, after an unmarried teacher was fired for being pregnant.

The 26-year-old preschool teacher was fired last month.

She says a week after telling the principal that she was pregnant and planned to keep the baby, she received a pink slip in the form of a letter telling her, "a teacher cannot violate the tenets of Catholic morality."

The teacher, Michelle McCusker, says, "I also don't understand how a religion that prides itself on forgiving and on valuing life could terminate me because I'm pregnant and choosing to have this baby."

I sincerely doubt they fire all the employees who have premarital sex.

[noiretextatique]

1. no, only the ones who get pregnant and don't have abortions

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S.

[regnaD kciN]

79. Not quite the case...

I'm sure that, if someone in her position were to have an abortion, and the school found out about it, she'd be fired just as quickly.

I would also point out that "strictness" (even what most here would consider "unreasonable strictness") and "hypocrisy" are not the same thing.

[noiretextatique]

85. "strictness"

about WHAT? morality or faux morality...the appearance of morality? this is the same institution that sheltered and continues to shelter pedophiles. yes, HYPOCRISY is the correct term for this situation.

[Canuckistanian]

And if he was the father, they wouldn't fire him.

Catholics invented double standards.

[regnaD kciN]

11. If it was the father, they wouldn't have to know about it...

...because, obviously, he wouldn't be the one visibly pregnant.

Now, if he were to notify the administration that, say, his girlfriend was pregnant and he wanted his health plan to cover their child, I honestly can't say what the response would be. It would probably vary from school to school, depending on the official in charge. They might decide to accept the situation, they might fire him, or they might give him a huge lecture on how he and said girlfriend "need to get married at once" (with the implication that refusing to do so could have negative effects on his career).

But it isn't a matter of "double standards" at all. You can't fire someone for breaches of one's moral code if you don't know about it in the first place.

[MADem]

22. There's her defense, if she goes to court!

Find a male teacher who is an unwed father, preferably one who has older kids and has remained employed, and sue their ass for gender discrimination!

[Eric J in MN]

34. The NY Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit (nt)

nt

[MADem]

46. GOOD--I hope she nails them! n/t

[regnaD kciN]

38. That wouldn't be a defense...

...since the unwed father would not have to bring up the fact that he had a child out of wedlock, it wouldn't be the same as a pregnant woman's condition being obvious.

OTOH, if she found a case in the same school where there was a male teacher with a pregnant girlfriend, and where he was very open about it with students and fellow teachers, and where he didn't suffer any consequences...then she'd have ground for such a suit. But I think you'd be as likely to find that situation as you would to find a pig soaring by overhead. :eyes:

BTW, since she would be the plaintiff in such a case, not the defendant, it wouldn't be a matter of having a "defense." She'd have to have the preponderance of the evidence to prove that the school was violating the state's employment laws. And that can be tricky under the best of situations.

[MADem]

44. Well, it depends on the wording of the morals clause of her contract

Does it say 'don't do it?' or 'don't get caught?' She could have gone on sabbatical, or claimed a relative had a bad disease and needed a leave of absence...and they would have never known.

If the clause says 'no naughty conduct' then all she'd have to do is say, hey Joe Blow the gym teacher has three illegitimate kids, and Fred Flintstone the biology teacher has two...and no one has fired them! The school would have a tough time using "we did not know" as an excuse--and there's your discrimination. She has no way of hiding her condition, and they do.

[regnaD kciN]

48. I agree that the wording is all-important...

...but I think your example is unrealistic.

The school would have a tough time using "we did not know" as an excuse--and there's your discrimination. She has no way of hiding her condition, and they do.

Actually, the school would have an easy time using "we did not know" as an excuse, since there's no reason why a male teacher with a pregnant girlfriend would be under any compulsion to reveal their situation to school administrators. OTOH, if such a male teacher had gone to the school and asked for their children to be put on their health plan, and it had come out that he wasn't married to the mother, and the administrators had been O.K. with that, and if the morals code was so unnuanced that it said, as you imply, that anyone found to have had sex outside of marriage while employed by the school would be automatically fired, then such a hypothetical case might well go against the school.

And, needless to say, if there were no male teachers with children by their girlfriends at such a school, then the very notion of discrimination becomes moot.

But it's likely that the morals clause says neither "don't do it" nor "don't get caught." More likely, it will say something like "the employee is required to present a good moral example to children and parents in accord with Catholic moral teachings." In which case, it would be a lot harder to prove discrimination, since the teacher in question, by remaining in school while unwed and visibly pregnant, would be ipso facto failing to present a good moral example. Whereas the male teachers with children out of wedlock, by not making their situation public, would not be in violation. (Although, if the matter became public knowledge, the school would be on solid legal ground for firing them as well.)

Lastly, we should remember that, even if it appears that the woman in question has a case, the likely outcome will merely be a quiet out-of-court financial settlement for her, followed by work to patch the legal holes in the morals clause for the school (and, if lawyers deem it necessary, the dismissal of any hypothetical male teachers with children by an unwed partner). What you won't see, I guarantee, is a court decision that will require private religious schools to continue to employ teachers deemed to be in public violation of the moral code of the faith. It just isn't going to happen.

[JuniperLea]

2. They wouldn't let a friend's little boy

into the church because he was born out of wedlock. I don't know about you, but that church sure gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.

:sarcasm:

[Eric J in MN]

19. Did you read that in another article? (nt)

nt

[SoCalDem]

88. The dead baby ditch..

When I was a child, at my Grandmother's funeral, I asked why there were crosses in the ditch, with little bundles of flowers..

I was told by the priest ..."Those are the unconsecrated graves of babies who died with original sin in their souls".. He said for me not to worry, since I had been baptised and confirmed..I would be buried in the cemetery-proper..

That was the creepiest thing I had seen in my then-12 years..:(

[leveymg]

3. Did they give her any options? Like, come back not pregnant?

Seems like a wrongful termination to me.

[Ilsa]

5. Options? Bwaaaahahahahaha! eom

[rodeodance]

10. it isa private agency--no such thing as wrongful termination.

[Eric J in MN]

31. It's illegal to discriminate based on gender, even for

private businesses.

The NYCLU is charging that the school doesn't enforce the policy against men.

[regnaD kciN]

43. And when...

The NYCLU is charging that the school doesn't enforce the policy against men.

...they bring forward an unwed, pregnant man who was allowed to continue teaching there, even when his "condition" became obvious :eyes: , they might have a case. But I think this is going to be a hard one to win in court.

[bettyellen]

54. and if they haven't, it's discriminatory toward women alone, right?

and even if the religion itself is also anti women in practice, as an employer they may have to abide by US law.
that would be nice.

[regnaD kciN]

75. Wrong...

To state that "it's discriminatory toward women alone" because only women can carry a child verges on the absurd.

Now, you might have cause for a discrimination case if the "morals clause" was worded so that it would only apply to not being allowed to teach if you got pregnant outside of marriage -- in other words, if it could only possibly apply to women. But, almost certainly, that regulation is worded to forbid any violations of Catholic moral teachings. In other words, a male teacher could be fired under the same clause if he were apprehended for shoplifting. If the clause applies to both males and females, and there isn't a pattern of consciously applying it only to females, it would be hard if not impossible to prove the clause is discriminatory.

[bettyellen]

78. if it's been 100% discrimintatory in practice- then it is discriminatory.

if it is a policy that's only ever been applied to the woman, i would hope the church could explain in court how it isn't inherantly sexist. i think it's worth taking to court.
but i know labor law is just shit in this country. but i think it's an important point to make.

[regnaD kciN]

80. It's true that unequal application could be grounds for a verdict...

...but it wouldn't only require demonstrating that it's "only ever been applied to the woman," but that similar cases involving men hadn't been applied. As in the hypothetical case discussed on this thread, if there had been a male teacher at the same school who had gotten his girlfriend pregnant, and if it had been public knowledge in the same way as this case (in other words, if the visibly-pregnant girlfriend had been on the school's campus where she had been introduced by the teacher as being his unmarried partner and carrying his child) and the school hadn't taken disciplinary action against him, then the school would be vulnerable to legal action for taking a harsh line against a woman teacher in similar circumstances. But there has been nothing in any story so far indicating that said circumstances were the case. If this is the first time that circumstances violating a teacher's presumed contractural agreement to abide by Catholic moral teaching had ever come to light at this school, and the administration chose to impose harsh penalties, then that may be overly strict, but it isn't discriminatory.

[bettyellen]

81. interesting. but do you think the church would argue they are okay

with people acting immoral even if they hide it easily, like a man could? they are not okay with homosexuals who practice, i think this is against their rules, right... and other jobs can also fire people for behaviour at home- such as smokers recently- couldn't and shouldn't the church apply it the same way? wouldn't that be the only way not to be punishing just women for this "sin". it seems they choose to apply it in circumstances that would only hurt the woman. good god, it pisses me off the tax breaks these guys get.

[noiretextatique]

86. men don't get pregnant

so much for your non-argument.

[regnaD kciN]

41. I could only think of a couple of "options" they could offer...

1) Get married right away.
2) Take a leave of absence until the baby is born, then return to work (making sure not to mention your situation to children or parents in the future).

I'm not sure if they offered either of these options, but I suspect they wouldn't be acceptable to the teacher in question in any event.

[Jaundice James]

What's that old story about carrying a snake and knowing it was a snake?

[shanti]

20. yes, i do

but what does that 'story' have to do with this one? i see no similarities at all.

[Jaundice James]

36. She's teaching at a Catholic school and she's SURPRISED...

they kicked her out for getting pregnant out of wedlock?

That's like sitting in an A.A. meeting sipping out of a flask and being surprised when they ask you to leave. -JJ

[kikiek]

57. Lets see..who would I want teaching my kids? A pregnant single woman

or a child molesting priest? Talk about drinking out of a flask at an AA meeting! Yet they were allowed to stay. Morality but only when it is convenient according to the history of the church. What kind of lesson is that?

[shanti]

65. ok, i get where you're coming from

although you could've picked a better analogy.

[mondo joe]

82. That might be true if the same laws that apply to employment applied to

AA meetings. In which case she'd expect to have legal recourse.

[Jaundice James]

83. OK. Bad analogy. n/t

[shanti]

64. delete

[0007]

91. YOU just flew over my head, can you explain what you

had in mind with the snake analogy?

[kikiek]

4. Well haven't they ever heard of virgins giving birth before? You know

what happens when you assume.

[MADem]

That was the first snarky thought that came into my mind!

And I hope she finds herself a lawyer to bring it up!!

They can't say it NEVER happened!

[MADem]

17. That was the first snarky thought that came into my mind!

And I hope she finds herself a lawyer to bring it up!!

They can't say it NEVER happened!

[kikiek]

35. Yeah makes me wonder what they really think about Mary.

[Independent thinker]

6. This is absolutely ridiculious!

Whether she is married, single, parent or not a parent
has nothing to do with her ability to perform her work.

They are teaching everyone that if you do get pregnant and
want to keep your job keep your mouth shut, tell no one, and
get an abortion.

Instead she chooses life and is sent packing!

Stoopid stoopid stoopid!

[Eric J in MN]

23. Yes, it seems like a policy which will promote abortion,

which is ironic from a Catholic school.

[Caoimhe]

7. How sad

What sortof message does that send to the kids? If you get pregnant out of wedlock, you lose your job. If you abort it and keep your mouth shut, you keep your job.

[regnaD kciN]

21. While we're talking about messages sent to kids...

...let me play devil's advocate for a minute. Imagine the following scenario:

CHILD: Ms. McCusker, is your husband excited about the baby?

TEACHER: Well...I don't have a husband.

CHILD: You don't have a husband?

TEACHER: No. I'm not married.

CHILD: But, if you're not married, how could you be having a baby?

Now, either the teacher has to give a lesson on "the facts of life" to a preschool class (and have their parents raise holy hell), or she can brush it off, and have the kids go back to their parents and ask them, "Mommy, Ms. McCusker isn't married, but she's having a baby. How come?" The parents stammer for several minutes, then call the school and...raise holy hell.

Either way, you'd probably get a lot of parents (who sent their kids to parochial school to get them away from the "moral vacuum" of the public school system :eyes: ) pulling their kids out and sending them elsewhere, and probably sending off irate letters to a) the Bishop's office, b) the national council's office, c) the Vatican, d) any number of conservative Catholic publications, or e) all of the above. Any of which could get the official in charge of the school (most likely a priest or nun) into major hot water, and wind up in a parish in the middle of the Mojave Desert for the rest of their life.

I'm not saying that they were right to dismiss the teacher, but I'm sure a lot of such considerations were going through the administrator's head, particularly if they themselves leaned toward the conservative position already.

(On the other hand, to play devil's advocate of devil's advocate, your comment about "if you abort it and keep your mouth shut, you keep your job" being a "message sent to kids" is a non-sequiter, since, if you follow that course of action, you don't tell the kids in the first place, so they don't get any message. Now, if the teacher were to get an abortion and then tell the kids about it, do you really think they'd keep their job?)

[Eric J in MN]

25. The message sent to other female employees

is that if they're single and get pregnant, they better abort to keep their jobs (not to the students.)

Regarding conversations which might take place, she could be trained to dodge the question.

CHILD: Ms. McCusker, is your husband excited about the baby?

TEACHER: I'm excited about the baby.

[regnaD kciN]

45. While I don't agree with the school's policy...

...I would hazard a guess that the message being sent to other female employees is more like "if you're not married, don't have sex." Which, while we may think it ridiculous, is certainly standard Roman Catholic moral teaching.

[noiretextatique]

87. except some catholics don't have to adhere to that doctrine

do they? like the ones who don't get pregnant :think: that's called: discrimination.

[NashVegas]

39. Alternate Scenario

Principal: class, this is your new teacher, Miss Y

Kids: where's Miss X?

Principal: Miss X had a family emergency and had to quit work.

Kids: is she ever coming back?

Principal: no, she never will.

Four years later, a few of the kids are hanging out at a local playground, and there's Miss X with her child. They are happy to see her, they chat with her. They put two and two together and figure out the pregnancy was the family emergency. Maybe they even find out she's still not married. They go into school the next day and tell all the other kids in the class (in Catholic schools you can have the same 20 kids in your class for nine years). Their current teacher is very vague and won't say much about Miss X. Eventually certain things start to register and they figure out Miss X got fired for being pregnant and unwed.

That's the day at least some of the class starts losing respect for authority, especially religious authority, figures.

[Caoimhe]

58. Well.. it depends on the age of the students

I would think that the teacher could handle it like this:

STUDENT: Ms. Clumpett, is your husband excited about the baby?
TEACHER: Well, he isn't unexcited!

-assuming the worst-

STUDENT: Are you married, Ms. Clumpett?
TEACHER: You'd need to ask my husband, Jimmy

be creative.. ! OK it can take lying, but wtf.. fire a girl for being pregnant and chosing to keep it? We can all move past the old stereotypes.. the gift is she is choosing to keep it right? Isn't the students watching her progress and sharing her joy a BONUS? She can figure out what lessons it teaches.

Obviously, the private school has an ultimate say.. so whatever they decide is the law. Unfortunately what stories like this do is they highlight and encourage others to wonder WTF is the Catholic religion supposed to represent? LIFE or DEATH?

My 2 cents

What this creates is another wedge in the Catholic Church (tm)

Many in my generation wonder why they still subscribe to a religion that teaches them that contraception is bad. They become "CAFETERIA CATHOLICS" who pick and choose which doctrines to believe.

All I want to know is.. what if a kid says

STUDENT: What happened to MS. CRUMPETT?
SUBSTITUTE TEACHER: She is sick, Johnny

STUDENT: But, what about her baby:?
SUBSTITUTE TEACHER: Her what?
STUDENT: She said she was gonna have a baby

this person isn't hiding from her choice, she wants to have this kid. The school should back her and help her devise a way of dealing with it.

[Ilsa]

8. I'm bewildered by why she bothered to tell them she was preggers.

I guess she wanted to be upfront, but what could they have done if she ended up giving birth during the summer break? Could they have intruded into her medical files?

Would they have fired her if she had had an abortion?

[MADem]

18. Maybe there is a maternity plan associated with her health care

And she wanted to avail herself of it, as she should...

[Caoimhe]

61. That is a distinct possibility

but.. what if she just didn't feel like hiding it? Jesus... she might get huge, she might want to share with the kids (who many have mothers going through the same thing) the changes happening. I remember many teachers "getting fat" then having babies... It's LIFE.. deal with it!

[LiberalEsto]

9. Since they'd give her holy hell if she had an abortion,

what plans does this "compassionate" church have for helping take care of this unfortunate woman and her baby?

Will they provide medical care, housing, delivery services, pediatric care? Who will feed this woman? Where will she go?
And how will they help support her and her child?

This is the ultimate in misogynistic hypocrisy.

[MaineDem]

12. She understood the ramifications when she took the job

Her contract has, for want of a better term, a "morals clause",

It's a private school. They can pretty much hire and fire as they want. I can understand parents sending their kids to this school wanting the teachers to conform to the morality the Church is teaching.

That being said, it's probably because of the years I spent in Catholic schools (12 years) that I think so poorly of the organization and hierarchy of the Church today.

[Eric J in MN]

27. It isn't legal for private businesses to discriminate based on gender.

The NY Civil Liberties Union is contending that the school has one policy for women and another for men.

[MaineDem]

29. Until men can get pregnant there's going to be a difference

I can understand both sides but I think she's out of luck and a job in this case.

[Eric J in MN]

37. I disagree. I predict the school will reach an out-of-court settlement.

nt

[Nevernose]

13. Can't she just go to confession? Transfer her to another school?

I'm a little hazy on the nuances of Catholic dogma (and God knows there's a lot of dogma), but if she goes to confession, aren't her sins forgiven?

And on the same note, wouldn't ANY teacher going to confession be "violating the tenets of Catholic morality" because -- obviously -- they've sinned and need to confess. And wouldn't NOT going to confession also be violating those same tenets, since nobody is free from sin?

And couldn't they just transfer her to another school? It's good enough for the tenet-violating priests, isn't it?

[MrMonk]

15. It's not a matter of sin and repentance

It's a matter of adherence to the school's personnel policy, under which the teacher is bound to be a moral example to the children according to the Church's view of morality.

[Nevernose]

40. And I'm willing to accept the contract law aspect of it.

Legally, it seems as if she hasn't got a pot to piss in. If she signed a contract with that kind of a clause, then she shouldn't have been surprised at her termination. But that don't make it right.

However, doesn't the church's view of morality also include sin and repentance? It just seems kind of shitty that there is no room in the "teacher handbook" for that. Theoretically, she should at least be allowed to continue her job as long as she agreed to wear a scarlet letter

[HockeyMom]

14. Go you one better than that

Back in the 1960's all girl Catholic School where I went, they wanted a pregnant, MARRIED, teacher to resign before she started to "show". Excuse me? First of all, HS girls KNOW where babies come from, even Catholic school girls. Second, wasn't she doing EXACTLY what the Catholic Church advocates for married women? Make BABIES.

[MrMonk]

16. It was the same way in public schools at that time.

Such a requirement was not unique to Catholic schools.

[Eric J in MN]

28. Did she resign?

What happened?

[HockeyMom]

51. No

The girls parents wrote a lot of letters to support her staying as long as she was physically able to. She was a great teacher and a "big sister" to many girls. It was nice to actually have a female teacher who wasn't a Nun and who knew the "real world" so to speak.

[catmother]

24. i was fired from a major bank in 1960 because i was pregnant.

i was scheduled to be married in a few weeks and i was only about 6 weeks along. they explained that there was a lot of talk and they couldn't have that. can you imagine them pulling that shit today? i'd own the damn bank.

[regnaD kciN]

32. "A lot of talk"...?

That makes little sense -- you were only six weeks pregnant. How could anyone tell your condition?

Or was it more that they felt you were getting married quickly, so you must be already pregnant? :eyes:

[catmother]

42. i probably told 1 or 2 co-workers.n/t

[Caoimhe]

63. OMG

YOU should have kept your mouth SHUT! PREGNANCY out of wedlock is to be SHAMED!

I am surprised you weren't stoned.

Sweet Jesus. Do these people really believe in the VIRGIN Mary??

[catmother]

70. oh it was a really big deal. my family wanted me married in the

catholic church, but 3 weeks before marriage, the church would have to announce the upcoming wedding on sunday mass. my grandmother didn't want the neighbors to know. i wound up being married in some christian church and then 3 weeks later a quick ceremony in the catholic church. how times have changed. lol

and yes they do believe in the virgin mary. my mom is 82, a non-practicing catholic, but she still prays to mary and believes in the devil.

i don't know what i am. i lean towards buddhism and i've been telling my mom about reincarnation for over 20 years now.

incidentally, that marriage only lasted 6 years. i married my second husband in 1971. we're still together. and that 1960 pregnancy was my only one. my choice.

[MrMonk]

74. I thought Catholics were Christians. Why distinguish between them?

[catmother]

77. back in those days there was a big difference. probably still

is. catholic school taught us to convert our protestant friends because only catholics could go to heaven. i think they've changed that.

actually there are a lot of differences, i.e., priests can't marry, the only form of birth control allowed is rythm. if you use birth control and confess it, you cannot get absolution unless you promise never to use it again. that's why many catholics go to mass but don't receive communion. if the woman goes into menopause or has a hysterectomy then there is no need for birth control and they go back to taking HOLY communion. it's a real fucked up religion. glad i got away from it early enough in my life. oh there was even a time if you ate meat on friday you went to hell, but then they changed the law, so i guess all the people in hell who ate meat, were relocated to heaven.

oh and, of course, no divorce. as far as the catholic church is concerned i'm still married to husband #1.

[Eric J in MN]

33. Some things have gotten better since "the good old days" (nt)

nt

[Triana]

26. How utterly Taliban of them...

...they do not value life. They value birth. What happens after that is not their concern.

[Caoimhe]

66. not even that though

they don't give one honking shit about this mother's child. Only the ones conceived in wedlock count. The rest are BASTARDS and those HEATHEN BASTARD PRODUCING WRATHS deserved what they got by their bad choices! Sex = evil

[Orsino]

89. They want to outlaw unregulated birth.

Everything not mandatory to be forbidden.

[BattyDem]

30. So ...

A male, pedophile priest gets transferred to another parish and remains employed by the Catholic church.

An unmarried, pregnant female gets fired for violating the tenents of Catholic morality.

:wtf:

It's shit like this that caused me to say goodbye to the Catholic church years ago!

[Caoimhe]

68. I can't blame ya Batty

I never was a Catholic but (shudder) a Baptist and I am still recovering, dear! Pointing out the hypocrisy of that which we have grown past is the sweetest deliverance of all.

[WCGreen]

47. One of the things the Bush Administration was trying to change

with their faith based initiatives is to legally sanction such discriminatory practices even if that Pre School received federal funding....

[hopeisaplace]

49. Interesting story at CHRISTMAS TIME...

hmmmm, what other famous woman was "pregnant" out of wed lock...we're about to celebrate that baby's birthday...hmmmm...
Jesus was special..but this child is not??? I think Jesus would beg to differ...WWJD hmmmm

I feel for this woman.

[yankeedem]

50. Sorry, this really pisses me off

Get pregnant out of wedlock: You're fired!

Rape little boys: Shhhh. We'll just send you to another school.

[sarcasmo]

52. Kick and Nom, the Catholic Taliban is as CRAZY as the Christian version.

[proud2BlibKansan]

53. I replied in another thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5428275&mesg_id=5433895

She is better off. She can make more money teaching in a public school. And there IS a teacher shortage after all.

[Eric J in MN]

60. She's a preschool teacher, and so she probably doesn't

have a license to teach older kids.

Also, preschool teachers get lousy pay. Her salary of $30,000 she was getting is better than most preschool teachers make.

[proud2BlibKansan]

67. She might be certified

Catholic schools would not be likely to pay her that much unless she IS certified.

[deadmessengers]

55. Hypocrisy

It's amazing - they'll fire a preschool teacher for getting knocked up, but they won't fire a molester in a Roman collar.

DAMN I'm glad I'm not Catholic any more.

[u4ic]

56. I had to double check my calendar

yep, it's 2005. :banghead:

[yasmina27]

59. Different situations, but....

In PA, a public school employee can be fired for anything that "offends the morals of the community", regardless of tenure. That means unmarried pregnancy, DUI, whatever.

Years ago, before I was married, I had an abortion (and NO I do not want to turn this into an abortion debate!)because I had no intention of marrying the father and knew that the community would have a hissy fit if they knew. And yes, to this day, if it became public news about the abortion, I'd probably be in trouble.

Just this school year, our superintendant suffered 3rd degree burns in an apartment fire set by his mistress (a school board member of a neighboring district). Before setting the fire, she fed him ladylocks laced with a sedative. Fortunately for us, he submitted his resignation recently, not because I care about his personal life, but because he is a asshole in general!

I wouldn't wish his situation on anyone (although I've had quite a few nasty thoughts about * over the last 5 years!!). However, it was the right wing wackos in our community - of which there are too many -who were screaming for his blood.

Of course the drama of the situation was and continues to be all over the local news (rumor has it that it was even run on CNN. Must have been a really slow news day!).

Now, shall I tell you about our former principal, now acting superintendant, whose husband was arrested for soliciting a 12 yo. girl (AKA undercover cop) online?

Truly, if all this wasn't so tragic, it would make a great afternoon soap!

[Eric J in MN]

62. If a public school does fire an unmarried woman

for getting pregnant, they will lose big in federal court, because they can't claim it was their free exercise of religion.

[davidthegnome]

71. I don't think that was the right thing to do

but I do believe the administrator had a RIGHT to make that decision. BTW, this has nothing to do with the child abuse scandals, some of you are really pulling at straws here. The Catholic church has never been, and is not now, a democracy. One of the wonderful things we have in this Country is freedom of religion.

Now, in a Catholic school, Catholics are going to handle things the way that they see fit, and I see nothing wrong with that. They aren't violating any laws. If this was a public school I'd be cheering her on, but in this case, I don't think she has much hope of getting anywhere in court.

And, I'm sorry, but if it WERE a man, the same thing would have been done - provided they KNEW he had impregnated a woman prior to marriage. The Catholic church cannot afford to play favoritism right now. All of these cries of misogyny -in this particular case- are unfounded. I assure you that if you were to speak with a Catholic Priest, or a teacher at a Catholic school, you would find that even men have been terminated for similar reasons.

It's not because she's a woman - but because she, as an employee there, was responsible for certain things. One of those things which she was responsible for was to be a good role model for those children. Now, I'm not saying that she wasn't one - but a great number of Catholics - particularly those who are religious enough to put their children in Catholic schools - would disagree with me.

Abortion, well, that's an entirely different subject.

[Caoimhe]

69. different indeedy

>>>Just this school year, our superintendant suffered 3rd degree burns in an apartment fire set by his mistress (a school board member of a neighboring district). Before setting the fire, she fed him ladylocks laced with a sedative. Fortunately for us, he submitted his resignation recently, not because I care about his personal life, but because he is a asshole in general!<<<<<


that's some seriously depraved stuff. Just gotta say! No one wants that to happen in their school, whether they work there, have kids there, or both! Setting fire to other folks = bad. Having babies = not so bad!

[GoddessOfGuinness]

72. What if she was raped?

Nothing in the article indicates whether her pregnancy was the result of consensual sex or rape. And frankly, I don't see why it should be any of their business.

They should accept her decision and leave her alone.

Pricks. :grr:

[mzmolly]

73. Or, what is she was a man who impregnated a woman out of wedlock?

You can bet "he'd" have his fargen job. It's ok to be a pedophile priest and "keep one's job" but it's not ok to have a consensual relationship and decide to have a child?

Beyond frustrating, beyond injust, beyond hypocricy.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

76. Well obviously that would be the woman's fault.

Just like the kids were to blame for the poor pedohiles' weakness.

I want to write an angry letter, but I'm not sure whom should receive it... :grr:

[Eric J in MN]

84. You could make a small donation to the New York Civil Liberties Union,

and/or send them a kind letter.

[MountainLaurel]

90. They'd better not be

Getting a fucking dime of public funding.

:grr: