Catholic school teacher wins suit over being fired for artificial insemination

[they don't love you like i love you]

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/06/04/christa-dias-fired-archdiocese-awarded

Absolutely. The way Catholic schools behave in regards to their teachers is often quite disgusting. I'm surprised we haven't heard of anyone being fired yet from one for getting married in a Protestant church.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No.  It's a contract dispute, and in a Catholic school all the teachers have some sort of ministerial duties.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

They don't all have ministerial duties.  However, I don't see the verdict holding up under appeal.  She's in a position where her public behavior is subject to scrutiny.  An unmarried female intending to use artificial insemination to have a child outside of a marriage definitely crosses into the area of public behavior.  Now if she'd been a married woman, one could argue the use of artificial insemination instead of natural insemination would be a purely private matter.

So while the use of artificial insemination instead of natural insemination does not lead to grounds to dismiss, the use of insemination outside marriage instead of insemination inside marriage does provide ample grounds to dismiss.  The former distinction covers private behavior while the latter covers public behavior which reflects upon her employer.

[DemPGH]

There's no question it's both a good decision and a sound decision. A contract stipulation regulating her body to that extreme degree should be voided and declared illegal on any number of grounds. The diocese should be subject to a full investigation / inquiry by the DoJ as well.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There's no question it's both a good decision and a sound decision. A contract stipulation regulating her body to that extreme degree should be voided and declared illegal on any number of grounds. The diocese should be subject to a full investigation / inquiry by the DoJ as well.

There's every question.  She's an unmarried woman who has stated an interest in deliberately getting pregnant without getting marries who works for a religious organization which holds that procreation outside of marriage is immoral.  Assuming her contract has any sort of morals clause, her behavior clearly runs foul of it.

Really, the only reason I can see why she should win this case would be if for some odd reason her contract did not contain a morals clause.

[DemPGH]

There's no question it's both a good decision and a sound decision. A contract stipulation regulating her body to that extreme degree should be voided and declared illegal on any number of grounds. The diocese should be subject to a full investigation / inquiry by the DoJ as well.

There's every question.  She's an unmarried woman who has stated an interest in deliberately getting pregnant without getting marries who works for a religious organization which holds that procreation outside of marriage is immoral.  Assuming her contract has any sort of morals clause, her behavior clearly runs foul of it.

Really, the only reason I can see why she should win this case would be if for some odd reason her contract did not contain a morals clause.

Just because something is in a contract most certainly does not make it legal, obviously. Plus, a morals clause is not typically used to exert complete autocratic control over one's personal life.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There's no question it's both a good decision and a sound decision. A contract stipulation regulating her body to that extreme degree should be voided and declared illegal on any number of grounds. The diocese should be subject to a full investigation / inquiry by the DoJ as well.

There's every question.  She's an unmarried woman who has stated an interest in deliberately getting pregnant without getting marries who works for a religious organization which holds that procreation outside of marriage is immoral.  Assuming her contract has any sort of morals clause, her behavior clearly runs foul of it.

Really, the only reason I can see why she should win this case would be if for some odd reason her contract did not contain a morals clause.

Just because something is in a contract most certainly does not make it legal, obviously. Plus, a morals clause is not typically used to exert complete autocratic control over one's personal life.

Because obviously only Catholic schools can employ teachers.  Just because one has the freedom to do something does not mean that others must surrender their freedom to choose to associate with them if they choose to do it.  Freedom of association is meaningless without the ability to decide to not associate.  Incidentally, for the same reason I think Taft-Hartley is wrong in banning labor unions from engaging in secondary boycotts.

[Torie]

The First Amendment gives shield to religious schools teaching secular material from having to hew to the otherwise applicable employment laws?  Really?  If so, that is highly problematic, and if there is SCOTUS case precedent so holding, and I were on SCOTUS, I would vote to overturn that precedent, because I find it wrong and offensive. Just slap the religion label on something, and you can have your way with your employees. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Actually, the Civil Rights Act itself holds religious and non-profit organizations to a looser standard than private individuals and for-profit organizations.  I'm not certain which side SCOTUS would side with here if the case were to reach them.  I hope it sides in favor of the employer in this case.

Granted, I'm a reactionary who thinks Titles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act were just barely justifiable as a constitutionally dubious solution to an extreme problem without a more constitutionally supported resolution, so my opinion is likely in the minority here.  I don't like the government telling people what they must do or must not do.  I see no reason to believe that
Christa Dias would have difficulty in finding employment in her chosen field with an employer who would not object to her intentionally getting pregnant outside marriage, hence I don't see this as the sort of extreme problem that justifies trampling upon the school's right of association.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The decision is a bad decision on legal grounds, and I doubt it'll be upheld on appeal; however, the Church's views on artificial insemination (along with their views on contraception and sex in general) are ridiculous, in my opinion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The decision is a bad decision on legal grounds, and I doubt it'll be upheld on appeal; however, the Church's views on artificial insemination (along with their views on contraception and sex in general) are ridiculous, in my opinion.

For once, we're in complete agreement.  Well almost.  I object to calling the Roman Church as simply the Church as if there were no other group with a claim to that title.

[Badger]

IIRC a married male former employee of the school with ministerial duties testified for the Plaintiff that he and his wife engaged in in-vitro fertalization with the school's knowledge and never received any discipline whatsoever.

Is the fact he was, unlike the Plaintiff, married enough to not uphold the case on a sexual discrimination basis, or is the fact Church law (I believe) doesn't distinguish in-vitro for married or unmarried Catholics sufficient to show disparate (and thus illegal) treatment of employees of different genders?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, as I pointed out earlier, the fact that insemination outside marriage is, if successful, impossible to keep private, whereas the means of insemination is possible to keep private, means that a higher bar for action by the employer against the employee exists where only artificial insemination would be at issue.

What would be more at point to the case at hand would be if the school had treated differently an unmarried woman who used natural insemination to get pregnant.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Wondering Ernest, what would be your view of a school firing a teacher for getting married in a Protestant church if they had records showing they had been baptized and confirmed Catholic? From my understanding the church holds that anyone as such getting married in a non-Catholic ceremony's marriage is just as invalid as they consider divorcees being remarried or gay weddings, though not as controversial as obviously anyone who has left the church is not going to care about its opinion of their marriage.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd think it a very stupid reason to fire someone, but I'd support their right to do so.  Legally tho, to avoid any claims of disparate impact, at a minimum they'd need to have no other employees who had been married by a non-Catholic church.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The decision is a bad decision on legal grounds, and I doubt it'll be upheld on appeal; however, the Church's views on artificial insemination (along with their views on contraception and sex in general) are ridiculous, in my opinion.

For once, we're in complete agreement.  Well almost.  I object to calling the Roman Church as simply the Church as if there were no other group with a claim to that title.

It was 3 in the morning so I used shorthand.