of course religious schools should be allowed to discriminate. any private school should be able to.

doesn't matter what the issue is. could a quaker school fire a teacher who came out publically with a pro-war stance? of course.

another example.

Yup.

Similarly, there are private universities that require you to be a female to matriculate.

Also, a priest can be fired for being pro-choice as well.

Would you expect the same law to protect him from termination?

So it's totally appropriate for religious schools to force their employees to adhere to doctrine in ever facet of their lives? It's not like this teacher brought pro-choice into the classroom; she was penalized for something written in the newspaper.

I suppose if I'm a Christian teacher on vacation and I drop something on my foot and say "damn", I should be summarily dismissed? If I read a book in the privacy of my home or at the library and the book is written by a lesbian, the school is justified in sacking me? Maybe later they can fire someone for admitting in public to liking 70's music and Huckleberry Finn. That seems reasonable.

And here I thought 'freedom of speech' was an important aspect of promoting religious freedom and discourse. Apparently not.

One of the current doctrines of the Catholic Church is a doctrine that states that abortion is a sin.

In the schools eyes, what the teacher did was conciously advocate sin at a public level... which is contrary to their spiritual doctrine. Why would a Catholic School desire the services of a teacher who openly stands in defiance of the curricullum they teach?

And no, I don't think they would fire a teacher for reading a book that may have been written by a lesbian or for inadvertantly cursing in a moment of pain or for listening to a specific type of music in the privacy of your own home or for reading the book "Huck Finn" (a book which is taught more often in Catholic schools than in non-catholic schools). Your examples are in no way similar to publically denouncing the policies of the instution you work for (which is what the teacher effectively did).

Look, you can't compare this with swearing. Non-profit/religious organizations have quite a bit of leeway in who they hire and fire. A teacher is a representative of a school and a role model. If the school has beliefs that the teacher agrees to represent (and most Catholic schools require teachers to sign off on something to that effect) and that teacher goes against it then out he/she goes. It is NOT a freedom of speach issue. It probably is not news worthy. I do like that the teacher did not change her views as a result of her position, but she did agree to teach there, and likely agreed to be a "model of Catholicism" to her students or somesuch.

Now I would have an issue with this if someone went well out of their way to find out this woman's belief and it was one not known to the students. Then it's more of a personal vendetta, and that may be how it was, but even still, once it is out, that is the school's policy, and it is sad, but they are in the right to fire her.

The Catholic Church has a hell of a lot of sins. Yet I don't see the school carefully screening their teacher's to make certain they call Mum and Dad faithfully once a week as a sign of respect, that they do no work on Sundays (including mowing the lawn), and making sure that exactly 10% of their salaries go to the Church.

It's amazing how quickly they jump at a signature on a pro-choice ad - especially when abortion isn't even MENTIONED in the Bible... and the sins I listed ARE. :)

Teachers have also been fired from Catholic schools for using fertility treatments or getting pregnant out of wedlock. You think that's fine too? These are examples where people were just living their life--not "publically denouncing the policies of the instution" they worked for.

Tolerance is the sign of a strong position. Rather than fire and abuse anyone who doesn't conform to their narrow ideas of right and wrong, they'd make more converts with a policy of openness to the expression of personal beliefs.

Haven't they ever heard that you can convert more flies with honey than with vinegar?

Grr...EJ
Yes, the Catholic church is waaaaaay too concerned with abortion when compared with other sins, but it is an excommunicatable (sp?) offense and a mortal sin. Not calling your parents isn't even, of itself, a sign of disrespect. If you want to compare it with something, say the teacher was pro-honor killings.

Sorry: I'm not saying honor-killing is remotely comparable to abortion (and I am pro-choice), but in terms of the stance of the Catholic Church, it is.

I have a question....

Did they fire all the priests who were accused of molesting the young boys in their congregations? I seem to remember them being relocated but them not losing their position/title/etc.

jketts, read the Bible. Disrespecting one's parents is an offense punishable by death. By comparison, rape is "punishable" by marriage. Abortion isn't mentioned in the Bible, but at least one Jewish leader sacrificed his pre-teen daughter to death without any censure.

Ahlana, you're correct.

Raping minors is worthy of a massive cover-up.

Signing pro-choice literature is worthy of sacking.

Case closed. Another win for the Catholic Church.

Ahlana: some of them, yes, but not nearly enough. The Catholic church is horribly hyprocritical in many things.
Jessica: It's not about publicly denouncing. It's been a while, and I may be remembering poorly, but iirc teacher at Catholic schools, as part of their contract, generally agree to be "models of Catholocism," and that would include not being a single parent. Hypocritical and somewhat reprehensible? Damn straight. Illegal. Nope.

EJ: I'm not talking about the Bible. It is the official position of the Catholic Church: abortion = excommunication, dishonoring parents = 5 Hail Mary's. Also: why is not calling 1/week disrespectful? I have lots of love and respect for my folks but I may not call them every week.

So the Bible has nothing to do with the Church? Glad they've finally decided to admit it.

As for the other: Congratulations. You won an whole half a point for proving that my hypothetical situation regarding disrespect of parents didn't go far enough to make it CLEARLY disrespectful.

For your sake, I'll make it crystal clear what I was saying, since it apparetly confused you. Okay, they don't JUST not call their parents. They publicly told their parents that they were stupid and that they hated them, ergo, they were disrespectful. My point is that they wouldn't be sacked, and that the Church can stop saying that they're just following the Bible and admit that they contradict the Bible and generally fear women's reproductive rights. Happy?

"Happy?"

More so than you could possibly imagine :)

I know that most religions take the bible at face value: they have slaves, have children with their servants, gouge out eyes etc... I've already said the church is horribly hypocritical. I've stated before that they are very anti-woman. I'm not saying they are on a moral high ground, they are not, just that they are legal.

Which is all well and good, but no one has argued that the Church was legally liable (obviously if they had been, the woman would have won her suit).

We're saying that they're NOT on the moral high ground and that this is a judgmental, hypocritical, bastardly thing to do. To jump in and argue that it is legal is to miss the point.

But I think you just like a good debate. ;)

"they'd make more converts with a policy of openness to the expression of personal beliefs."

Well EJ, you might think so. Perhaps it’s counterintuitive to you but the opposite is the case. Mainline Protestant Church’s who’s hierarchies went with political correctness have been losing membership and been in open decline for decades. Meanwhile the Catholic Church, Southern Baptists and Bible based Evangelical church’s growth has been explosive.

It seems unpacking the New York Times on Sunday morning is enough ritual for the secular urban sophisticate.

LOL.

Your opinion, not mine.

I attended a Christian university where non-abstinence meant you got expelled. As long as it was just policy but not really talked about, not too many of us slept around.

The adminstration got paranoid anyway, and started railing against sex constantly. Some people were sacked for not being "anti-sex" enough for their bosses. Bottom line? As soon as the administration tightened up, everyone started sleeping around. We had more busted hymens that month than previously thought possible.

It's an odd thing, but the more something is villified, the more curious people are. Witness all the people who drink at 17 and 18 but quit when they turn 21. :D

in brief... yes

and not just religious schools. private schools IN GENERAL. the operative thing here, imo is that the private school make these policies clear to PROSPECTIVE employees ***prior*** to employment

as long as this is made clear, it is ok

i went to a quaker school. quakers are pacificists. if my school required of teachers that they publically adhere to this philosophy if they want to teach at this school, that is ok

private and/or religious schools are perfectly authorized ot have missions and require certain philosophical requirements of prosecptive employee as long as it is clearly spelled out prior to employment, imo. ..

"So it's totally appropriate for religious schools to force their employees to adhere to doctrine in ever facet of their lives? It's not like this teacher brought pro-choice into the classroom; she was penalized for something written in the newspaper."

bn

FYI, this 3-judge panel was composed of a 2-1 Republican majority. The lead judge was an appointee of Bush Sr. The Third Circuit as a whole has a 12-7 Republican majority.

A major study by the University of Chicago has found that partisan differences are very significant on three-judge appellate panels, where a dissenting panel member will often join the majority opinion solely for the sake of preserving the authoritative legitimacy of the panel. George II's appointees are, unsurprisingly, the most radical.

To save many of you future heartache and unemployment, let me remind you that the Constitution, including the First Amendment, does not protect you against the actions of non-government institutions. Constitutional protection applies only to STATE action. A private school is not a state actor. A recent Supreme Court decision also weakened First Amendment protections for even state employees, like the ones who might tell us that our government is lying about yellow cake. If you work for a private employer, you are subject to the at will doctrine, and can be fired for any reason; your only recourse are statutes that protect against discrimination due to religion, sex, age, handicap and nationality. To stop this kind of thing in the private sector, people have to get very serious about what kind of institutions they support even in the smallest way. Don't send your children to Catholic school, don't buy stock in a company that supports anti-choice policies, and don't be afraid to tell people respectfully why. "Oh, I hear Ursline is a good school academically, but I can't support an institution that does not respect free thought." I live in Wilmington and I've said that to parents who send their kids there - very nicely, but I made it clear I think their children are being educated by narrow-minded crackpots. The government is not going to help us reform private companies, schools, or churches. That is our job, so speak up, and put your money (or don't) where your mouth is.

A final word, protecting crackpots can be very trying, but its why you and I can start a school and fire someone for being a Grand Dragon in the KKK. I want to preserve my right to do that, so we've got to put up with the goverment not interceding to stop this.

that last post was excellent. spot on. i totally agree. i may not agree with the catholic church on abortion, but the idea that a catholic church school cannot fire an employee for public statements made contrary to its doctrine would be absurd.

fwiw, not all states are "at will" btw. that also needs to be clarified.

Jessica:

You have the right to fire a feministing blogger who is anti-choice. So why do yo want to deny this right to others. It's a matter of choice.

Good riddance. Thank God for separation of church and state.

BTW Jessica, and everyone else who thinks this is a bad thing...You can't have it both ways. If you want the Church to stay of of your political affairs, then out of the same respect, stay out of the Church's affairs.

Omg people, there are legitimate reasons for the state to regulate discrimination in the workforce. If Jessica fires a blogger for being anti-choice, that's probably because Jessica thinks their anti-choice views are going to poison their work on the blog. Firing someone for their political views WITHOUT showing that those views will harm their professional work is something else. If the person's political views are not affecting their workplace performance, why should they be fired? For all the people here rushing to defend this school as some kind of paragon of freedom, don't you think it's kind of stupid to fire someone for something that happened entirely outside of her professional activity?

Angryleft wrote:

"If Jessica fires a blogger for being anti-choice, that's probably because Jessica thinks their anti-choice views are going to poison their work on the blog."

So does the school. In any case, it's a matter of who decides, Jessica and the School, or the government. Freedom means giving the power to the people.

Oh and bringing up the KKK is a strawman designed to ellicit an emotional response just because of the reputation tied with the name. Most of the population is pro-choice in some way and it in no way compares with being in the KKK.

Manju,

No it's not just a matter of who decides, it's a matter of the reason given for the decision. I saw nowhere in the article or any of the comments where it was ever argued that the teacher's views on abortion would undermine her professional performance. None of you in your eagerness to defend the school has even mentioned what it is that she teaches. Maybe she's a math teacher? The argument being given here by most commenters is that there's nothing wrong with arbitrarily firing someone even if it has nothing to do with their job, and I disagree with that.

Why did it attribute the above post to Manju? It's mine. :)

angryleft:

re the KKK. its not about trying to elicit an emotional response. In a free country, all views (kkk, jessica's, catholic schools) have EQUAL protection.

As you say, most op the population is pro-choice...which is more reason why we need to have equal protection for minority rights.

AngryLeft...

She's a religion teacher...at a catholic school.

I think there is a definite conflict there.

Re: It appears that she is a teacher of English. But again, I dont see how its relevant if she wasnt injecting her pro-choice views into the classroom.

Manju, yes it is trying to ellicit an emotional response. A more accurate example would have used, for example, someone who disagreed with you but still had a mainstream opinion. The only reason the "Grand Dragon of the KKK" was used was because it's an extreme organization whose name ellicits an emotional response independent of the arguments being used. As a professional, a person should be expected to be willing to work with others who disagree with them on mainstream controversies much more than those who hold leadership in ultra-extreme, violent organizations.

angryleft:

You make good distinctions. I agree w/ you on a moral basis. I just don't want to legislate this morality into law. Because next they'll come after Jessica.

Let the School decide and I'll decide not to send my kids there.

angryleft:

re: distinction b/w mainstream and extreme opinions.

You realize there was a time when Feminism or equal protection for blacks was not considered mainstream?

Manju, what I am mostly opposed to is when religious morality is put into law solely at the beck of a church or group of churches, because it contravenes the religiously neutral role of the state.

Secular morality is placed in legislation all the time-- laws against murder, marijuana, prostitution, you name it. As to this particular case, it could have gone either way. I don't like the decision, but neither am I outraged by it. But I do think that it's a legitimate position to say that the government should protect people from being fired for reasons that have nothing to do with their employment. That's the reasoning behind the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other anti-discrimination bills which, I think have had an overall positive effect on the country.

a school that is has a mission statement, a philosophical raison d'etre (whether religious our secular) clearly has an interest in ensuring that its employees - who further its mission by teaching its students) - do not publically oppose fundamental elements of its doctrine

again, i bring the point up about the quaker school teacher. would a quaker school (i went to one) be justified in firing a teacher who publically came out in favor of war? of COURSE

this is a school. the teacher at a private catholic school is - to some extent - a representative of the church, and its beliefs. clearly, such a private instution has that right. especially if that right is clarified PRIOR to employment.

on the KKK front, so to speak, would a public school have the right to fire a teacher, who in an OFFCAMPUS setting, promoted the ideals of the KKK? that would be a more interesting (and controversial ) discussion. if the right to free speech outside the workplace is sacrosanct, would people be willing to go that far, with a public school teacher, to accept that he was an outspoken klan member outside his classroom?

i think one could make the argument that it would be nigh impossible for him to treat minority students equally. that would be an argument

re: equal protection for women & minorities were never movement about doing violence for the sake of hatred toward an outsider group simply because they were different. The KKK is not just any out-of-the-mainstream group (like, say, pacifists or flat-taxers) but a particularly inflammatory one. Again, I dont think it compares.

pamps,

You are missing the whole point about bmc90's use of the KKK example to compare to this woman. The whole point is that it isn't comparable, so your question (and bmc90's) isn't a good analogy.

Now if you want to argue that by publicly coming out with this position then the woman's professional activity would be inherently compromised and because of that the school can fire her, I have absolutely no problem with that. The only thing I am saying is that the government can legitimately regulate employers who arbitrarily fire someone for reasons that have nothing to do with their work whatosever. An argument about why this woman's firing is justified should revolve around her work and how it is effected.

angryleft:

re: equal protection for the KKK.

OK. lets try a group could arguably be morally equivelent (or worse) than the KKK. Communists, ie totalitarians responsible for more deaths than the Nazi, not to mention enslaving whole peoples.

Do they get equal protection.

(for the record, I say yes)

Manju, the point is that a public Stalinist leader or a KKK leader by virtue of their public activities might have such poor relations with their co-workers and prospective customers that it damages the organization far more than their actual work does. Therefore, from a professional, business perspective their firing has a good reason. But not everyone who holds a political view that differs from the employer's would necessarily be subjected to this effect-- in that there are millions of people today working for organizations who may diagree with the organization on more minor points yet it doesn't effect their work. The ultimate issue is, as always, how much does it effect your work?

Angryleft-

Not only was she an English teacher, but she was also a Religion teacher.

There is a definite conflict of interests there.

Also, her public behavior outside of the classroom definitely influences her influence inside the classroom. She knew what she was doing when she said in the local media that she supported abortion.

Angryleft:

"The ultimate issue is, as always, how much does it effect your work?"

Again, I don't disagree with your distinction (morally), I just think its best (and in the best spirit of freedom) to leave it to the employer to decide.

The '64 civil rights act of course is a major exception as it was meant to deal with a history of brutal, systematic, and govenment sponsered oppression against blacks.

I daresay, no all groups fall under this distinction.

TT, being prochoice does NOT mean one supports abortion.

And no, it doesn't necessarily influence her work inside the classroom at all, even if she is a religion teacher. I can be pro-choice outside of work and still teach pro-life doctrine while I'm on the job. What I do outside work in my own free time has no inherent bearing on what I do inside it, although it could. Whether one thing is actually effecting the other in any particular case depends on the details of the case.

Manju,

You make a good distinction... I can definitely see the argument going both ways. Yet I think it's important to note that allowing the arbitrary firing of individuals for their political views only will have an overall effect throughout the country of silencing, in the aggregate, people whose opinions go against large organizations, employers, and the wealthy, especially in the private sector only. That will actually end up dampening freedom of speech in practice, and dampening public debate about important issues.

Angry Left-

The Catholic Churches point of view is that being ProChoice is the same as being ProAbortion.

It influences her influence as a Religion Teacher the second a child reads the ad in the local paper and says "Mrs. ______ how do you feel about abortion". She is then in a catch-22 position as a teacher. Either she lies and says she is against abortion, or she tells the truth and undermines the organization that she is hired to serve.

If she lies and says she is against abortion, then her students have no choice but to call into question everything she has taught them. Since, what she says in class contradicts what she says outside of class.

The position of the Catholic Church is that they are Pro-life. It's cut and dry. If she wanted to advocate a point of view that contradicted her non-profit employers, she should have realised that doing so would result in her termination.

See the movie "Donnie Darko". The physics teacher (a Catholic School teacher) says "I can't discuss this any further because it could jeopardize my employment". She broke her contract with her employer plain and simple.

She has no case. Why she would want to work for a group she fundamentally disagreed with, is beyond me. She was in the wrong. And I hope she had to pay the churches legal bills, because her suit was frivelous.

TT-

1. I didn't know your view was the exact same as the Catholic Church, sorry.

2. You missed a third possibility: she refuses to answer.

3. If it was spelled out explicitly when she was hired that publicly expressing a pro-choice view would result in termination, then yes, she should have known. But that's not necessarily the case. There's no necessary expectation of being fired every time someone publicly says something their employer disagrees with. If that was the case, there would be a lot fewer letters for newspaper editors to publish!

4. I don't think the suit was frivolous, it made it to a Federal Appeals court, which already puts it in the top 1% of cases, and the presiding judge, a Bush appointee, said that "this is an important case." So no the judges didn't think it was frivolous.

First of all, my view is not the same as the Catholic Church. I merely respect their right to run their schools as they wish, as long as the education they provide is adequate according to the states education standards (they are).

Secondly, the justices may have thought that the case was important, but that does not mean that the Catholic Church should have to pay their defense costs since they were not in the wrong.

Third of all, the teacher is currently employed (and public schools pay MORE than private schools do), so she is in no way entitled to damages.

And, I'm sure that when she was hired, she was hired on the condition that her teaching and her views reflected that of the Catholic church.

Since I don't have beliefs that parrallel the Catholic Churches, I will not send my children to a Catholic School. I also would never desire to teach at one...why she thought her behavior was appropriate or even acceptable as a Catholic educator is beyond me... since her actions are grounds from excommunication from the organization that employed her.

Simply, she was wrong.

I may not agree with the Catholic Church, but I do defend their right to hire educators who openly support their doctorines and don't defy them.

The fact that I pay taxes, and the Catholic Church is tax-exempt unfortunately makes this my business. I know it's crazy, but one would think an organization leeching off of everyone else would at least offer job security, and not concern itself with the employees' private lives.

As far as the popularity of Catholicism and the Evangelical fundamentalists (as opposed to traditional protestants), it's a great example of quantity vs. quality!

i referenced the KKK example, because having the ideas consistent with the KKK is also a matter of "conscience" (as disgusting as those ideas are), so i think it's an interesting analogy

here's how i see it

in a PUBLIC SCHOOL (public employee), the state should have no authority to fire a teacher over any out of class beliefs or group memberships, unless they could show it has negatively affected their work such that they could be fired for cause

the above case is completely different. a private school, one with some sort of mission - secular, religious, or whatever, absolutely must have the right to establish (as long as it is spelled out before employement) codes that are relevant to employment as a representative of that institution

NOW, for instance, certainly could fire a representative who came out publically with views completely divergent with what the NOW contigency believes

1. You said "She knew what she was doing when she said in the local media that she supported abortion." She did not say she supported abortion. She signed a petition in support of Roe v. Wade, which preserves choice, but does not mandate any abortions. I pointed out that wanting to preserve choice does not equal supporting abortion itself. You said that the "The Catholic Church thinks it does". Why would the Catholic Church's view matter unless you yourself took their view? It shouldnt because I am telling YOU why you are wrong, and why YOU shouldn't be saying that prochoice = abortion. It has nothing to do with the topic of the controversy, just between me and you. If your going to defend YOUR statements by using the doctrine of the Catholic Church, I'm just going to have to assume you accept that doctrine. Otherwise back up your words by your own reasoning, not the Catholic Church's reasoning. Does that make sense to you?? Sheesh.

2. You said it was a frivolous case. I am pointing out that it was not a frivolous case. It was an important one and sets a significant precedent. The Church should have to pay their own lawyers even though they won the case because that's how the system works. If you forced everyone who brought a legitimate suit and lost to pay the other side's lawyers, some people may not even choose to seek justice because they can't afford that much money. Which is why the system is the way it is. Plus, why should they be exempt from paying their lawyers when everyone else has to pay for their own lawyers?

3. No one gives a shit whether you are Catholic or where you send your kids or where you would want to teach, so you can stop repeating that over and over every single time you make a post.

4. If the Catholic Church wants to excommunicate all half of all US Catholics and the majority of all people in Catholic countries in Europe, then be my guest. No one ever said they couldn't excommunicate 1/3 of their membership. But this is still the U.S. of A., and here, people still have rights apart from the Church. The fact is that you have no idea what kind of employment contract was signed and whether or not political expression of a view disagree with by the Church was expressly prohibited or not. Nor do I have any idea why you think that being hired by an organization somehow gives them the power to dictate what the employee can or cannot say in terms of politics or what she can and cannot do in her own spare time, outside the workplace. Generally, those types of things fall outside the job description and are not a reason to terminate.

pamps,
I already explained on this topic why being Grand Dragon of the KKK is different from being prochoice, even if it is a "matter of conscience."

Regarding firing rights... just because someone works for an organization with a mission it doesnt mean they should be prohibited from doing anything that isnt 100% in agreement with the mission. The fact is that they are organizations that hire employees to do the exact same sorts of things that other organizations do... logistical things, or providing a skilled service, like teaching, or legal work... these type of people make up the majority of the employees at these places. Not the advocates. As long as they are doing what they were hired to do, there is no reason for them to be fired. If the organization wants to control their behavior 24/7, then the employees should be PAID 24/7, because the employer is asking for the whole of their time. Generally, this is NOT the case. The employer has no right to time that they did not pay for.

Makes you wonder if the school made damn sure that they had pro-life lawyers before they went to court. And pro-life legal aids, janitors, nannies.... :)

For the record, I 100% angry with everything that angryleft has posted and I'm only sorry I wasn't here to back him/her up when all the discussion went down the other day. ;)

Angry Left, you are being rediculous, and I'm done debating with you.

I will leave you with a quick question...

If the woman were a man and a member of NAMBLA, would you be supporting his right to be a priest? Or would you support the church terminating him when it was found out that he was a member of NAMBLA (regardless of whether or not he had ever had sex with a boy)?

Angryleft, I think what you are focusing on is whether there SHOULD be a law protecting employees' free speech rights where the speech does not impact their work. I assume you buy my contention that you can't nail the school under the First Amendment (as opposed to a statute) because it is not the government. Extending First Amendment protections beyond those impacted by a goverment act (me getting jailed for speech like flag buring, you getting fired for speech like saying you support the legalization of polygamy) is a bad idea because it unduly burdens the freedom of assembly (my right to have an organization that does NOT believe those things and to exclude those who do not share my thinking). As to the enactment of a statute to do this, I think you would make a litigious hash of the system by requiring people to argue about 1. whether they were fired for their beliefs in the first place and then 2 whether the beliefs are integral to the person's job. Lets say I fire someone for calling a co-worker a wetback. The fact that they believe that Hispanic people are inferior may have nothing to do with their typing speed, but besides being personally repulsed, I can't expect my other employees to tolerate working with that person. In some other work setting, people may use these pejorative terms all the time, and since there are no Hispanic people around to experience a hostile environment, and all the non-Hispanics are saying it too, it is not such a big deal. How would you judge two cases where the person was fired in both instances for using the word wetback, yet in one setting it really did not impact the work environment, while in the other it caused a riot? How do you achieve any kind of consistency in the application of a standard like that? Now I have to keep someone on my payroll who makes my blood boil so long as they keep typing? Does it matter whether it's IBM or a 3 person office? WHO KNOWS. The law did not protect this plaintiff, and what's more, as much as I deplore what the school did, I don't think it should.

Surely if certain behaviors or beliefs are are likely to get you fired then they should be checked when you are interviewed and written in your contract. You are asked about you views on animal testing if you apply for a job in a company that carries them out.

Then all is open from the outset. It just seems like common sense unless there are laws preventing this already in place.

Chem Fem,

When she was hired, it was almost assuredly mentioned in her contract that as a representitive of the catholic church that she is expected to embody the principles of Catholicism both at work and in her private life. If she should ever embody principles that contradict the principles of the Catholic Church either at work, or at home, then the Catholic Church reserves the right to terminate you for this reason.

That's not verbatim what would be on the contract, but I'm sure she was made well aware of their policy from the onset.

I would guess that she probably knew before she signed the public petition that she would be fired for it.

And there is a law in place in that state, but the court now set the precedent that that law was not meant to govern Religious institutions.

Chem Fem, it is apparent you have never actually hired anyone. It would take a 500 page contract to spell out in the detail you are suggesting what kind of "beliefs" could get you fired. Plus, it may be something that no one knows about, like a Catholic who gets hired and then much later supports this new technolgy called stem cell research which the church thinks kills babies. The few employees who actually do have a written agreement with their employers are generally subject to general provisions about not doing something that besmirches the reputation or undermies the mission of the institution, but that can be totally opposite things in different jobs and is open to tons of subjective interpretation. Most of us can be fired for reasons other than "just" cause; if you can negotiate something else with your employer and get it in writing, you go.

"One of the current doctrines of the Catholic Church is a doctrine that states that abortion is a sin.

In the schools eyes, what the teacher did was conciously advocate sin at a public level..."

I don't see how advocating in favor of Roe v. Wade is in anyway advocating sin. Plenty of people think abortion is immoral or sinful and also think that as a matter of law, the state should not force people to have an abortion. What this teacher did was take a *political* stance which disagreed with the Catholic Church's *political* stance. She said nothing whatsoever about its theological beliefs.

It's as if someone signed their name in support of the a law saying that the state can't force you to go to church each week. The Catholic Church thinks it's a sin not to go to church each week, and a signer might think so too. One can perfectly consistently stand in favor of a law allowing x without advocating that people do x.

Couldn't you shorten the contract by refering to specific texts that outline catholic doctrine, and include anything that the pope may in future condemn or condone as he chooses? This is a genuine question rather than a defence of my suggestion.

Interesting. I'm going to have to read about hiring practices. The school is a religious institution, but what about other employers? And how much should power should employers have over their employees personal life? Should an accountant lose his/her job because the head of a corporation is pro-life? It doesn't seem ethical that employment depends on political beliefs.

You can say, "oh, blah blah, it's within their rights to terminate someone who's personal philosophy doesn't match that of the chuch." Guess what? It's not that simple.

(Here I go again applying personal experience to an issue!)

I probably know more about the injustices of the Catholic church in terms of employment than any of you...my dad workd in various capacities for the church for much of his life. He was let go a year before retirement, because of someone's bruised ego.

Why? The parish council had set guidelines concerning the age of a child's first confession. Two years later, his department was reorganized, and he had to answer to the superintendent of schools, a nasty woman who hated him to begin with (probably jealous of his charm, and the fact that everyone loved him).

During this time, he started telling me about the horrible things she was doing to make him miserable. I told him to keep a journal, since I too had recently dealt with a monster of a boss.

Anyway, back to the first confession...when the council reconvened, she wanted to lower the age of the first confession to - get this - 6 years old! My dad firmly but politely stated that they had already established two years prior why it's better for everyone if the child is a little older. She then fired him for "insubordination." It's also interesting to note that 3 other people quit out of solidarity, which shows how well regarded he was. Sadly the priest didn't feel compelled to stand up to their awful conservative Archbishop in the matter.

My point? This wasn't the first time in my dad's job history (or others') for the church that one has been fired for their beliefs, even if it has nothing to do with church doctrine itself.

Those of us who practically grew up in rectories know there are two kinds of Catholics: the nasty ones you see in the news, and the ones who actually make a positive difference in the world (while wearing plain clothes, drinking wine, and enjoying life). My dad was always surrounded by the latter (especially priests and nuns), and they were always subject to criticism by their parishes, even if their beliefs technically fell in line with "official" beliefs (as I recall, I believe my dad once received a death threat from a parishoner because of his "liberal" attitude. Classy, huh?).

It's really a shame the church isn't more tolerant of the awesome people. As it is, there's already a shortage of priests, and they have to import them from India or Africa (needless to say, "proper white Catholics" aren't very happy that they can't understand their sermons!).

My dad's story has a happy ending; he's also a musician, and gives workshops all over the world (he has rockstar status in the church). The aforementioned parish had commissioned him for a special project prior to his termination. He has since charged them triple to finish it!

Oh, and I still believe that any "non-profit" that receives tax-exempt status from Uncle Sam damn well ought to practice non-discrimanatory hiring (yeah, I know...I'll file that dream next to "taking away business perks from companies that practice outsourcing").

If, on the other hand, they paid their share of taxes, I would actually agree they had every right to monitor employees' beliefs.

Churches in the UK to some degree don't need follow employment laws as you are hired by 'god' rather than a company, but how far this extends beyond churches I don't know.

Some companies use drug testing and I've heard of policies that prevent dating within a company before, this intrudes into your personal life to some degree. I don't agree that my personal life should be any business of my employers though.

If this happened more often in the UK I think there would be more challenges via appeals to the European Court of Human Rights.

LOL.

I only just noticed my typo!!

I meant to say I 100% AGREE with AngryLeft.

Instead I said I 100% Angry with AngryLeft. :D

Dislexia strikes again!! :P

I also Agree with Jane and Chem.

Chem is right that "fire-able" offenses should be discussed openly and honestly among the staff. Apart from the moral issues here, if the woman had "for sure" known in advance that ANY expressed support of Roe v. Wade would result in her termination, then it is likely that her suit would never have come to court and think of all the money and time that would have been saved. If the Church is going to practice "unwritten rules", they can't be too upset when someone takes them to court over them. Furthermore, it would be more open and moral (IMO) to make it clear, in writing, what is and isn't expected. Could it be that they DIDN'T do this because they feared their "do what we say in all areas of your life or you will be fired" stance might be illegal and they didn't want to leave a paper trail? It's a valid question.

Further, Jane is correct in that most employers can't just fire you "just because". That's what wrongful termination suits are about. This school got off easy because it's a religious organization and the state is concerned about stepping on toes, but a secular business can't fire people "just because" without taking appropriate, documented steps to show that the person is being fired for XXX reasons, which must be legitimate. Those of you who are saying that people can be sacked for no reason at all have apparently never held a job above "clerk" or "waiter" - anything salaried generally comes with a reasonable expectation of non-arbitrary sacking.

"The Catholic Church has a hell of a lot of sins. Yet I don't see the school carefully screening their teacher's to make certain they call Mum and Dad faithfully once a week as a sign of respect, that they do no work on Sundays (including mowing the lawn), and making sure that exactly 10% of their salaries go to the Church.

It's amazing how quickly they jump at a signature on a pro-choice ad - especially when abortion isn't even MENTIONED in the Bible... and the sins I listed ARE. :)"

Look as a religious studies minor, an ex-Catholic and as a feminist I can tell you I have A LOT of issues with the Catholic church, their hypocrasy, and their institution. However the different between Catholicism and Protestanism is that Protestants focus on what's written in the Bible - in the Catholic church the Pope, head of the Vatican, a heirarchy, has top say in everything. So if the people in this chain of power care more about whether a teacher representing their school publicly supporting a woman's choice than other "sins" listen in the Bible - that's their perogative.

Mind you I'm infuriated towards their stance on women, molested children and the bastards in their hierarchy who did it and got away with it, sex and abuse in general, and a number of other things. But if you're a private school owner of a religious faith - so long as you're not getting government dollars - you can enforce a certain PUBLIC moral code on your employees if they know this at the time of employment. Teachers are role-models for students so I understand the schools not wanting them to be public advocates of what THEY consider to be a sin (though I disagree with them).

um... again, the law varies from state to state. we live in a democratic republic

depending on whether the state is an "at will" state or not

in some states, PRIVATE employers can fire an employee "just because"

in other states, they can't

that needs to be understood

this is not a "just because' issue though, of course. as has been discussed.

TT, again I think you're using an extremist example that actually obscures the issues more than illuminating it. A pedophile teaching in a school puts kids at risk of PHYSICAL harm and victims of ILLEGAL activity. A employee expressing a political view different from the employer does not come close to this.

bmc90, I completely agree that employers have the right to have organizations which "exclude those who do not share [their] thinking." I just think they should recognize they are not just hiring a "teacher" or a "janitor" (someone who does the work that they mandate for the hours paid), but also someone who thinks precisely as they mandate-- 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. In other words the organization lays (at least partial) claim to their thought and activity at every living moment. If that’s the case, a pre-arranged contract spelling out what is prohibited outside “work� hours does not seem unreasonable, since there won’t always be a supervisor around to say.
However, it’s possible to create a religious school with a sense of community that doesn't demand such total control. A community could be created simply be requiring employees to act in conformity with community needs during the hours that they are actually on the job.
With regard to the practical applications of protecting political speech, at a basic level it can be asked 1. Did the employer state a reason besides a non-job impacting political expression? 2. Are employees in comparable organizations doing comparable work being fired for holding these beliefs? I admit, there would have to be fact-finding and judicial discretion in every case, just as there is now in other types of cases. But that does not by itself invalidate the justification for setting up a legal standard.
I really only have three points: (1) In my personal opinion, firing someone for outside political beliefs without any reference to job performance is an unfair practice, (2) arbitrary firing of this type slants the exercise of free speech in favor employers, large organizations and the wealthy, and (3) it is legitimate for the government to regulate the hiring and firing of employees, as per wrongful termination cases.

EJ, for the love of god go read 99.9% of all wrongful termination cases. They mostly involve government workers, people who are in protected categories and allege firing for that reason (i.e. sex, gender, religion), people with collective bargaining agreements, and people who have written contracts with their employers (some of which contracts are just fancy offer letters that still say you are at will). My husband was fired from his job as a lawyer; later we found it it was because he was close to figuring out a client was doing some major fraud that landed the client in jail. The partner who orchastrated his firing was covering it up. Guess what? He had no cause of action against the law firm whatsoever, even though the partner was later asked to leave as well. Please do not dream that someone owes you a fair shake. They don't most of the time. Even if you MIGHT have a case, you have to find a lawyer who will take it on contingency because the litigation costs huge bucks, so your remedies are even more effectively limited. The quesiton of whether all this is MORAL is another kettle of fish, but I run across all kind of people who think their employer owes them some kind of due process in firing them, and that's just mostly NOT TRUE.

bmc90, for the love of god, as you put it, you don't seem to understand the law. In most states, you cannot fire someone for whatever reason you deem. This is especially true for small businesses. An old professor friend of mine made a very nice side business of advising employers how to go about the process of sacking people. Lots of documentation was involved, and he was very conscientious about making sure that his clients couldn't get hurt by later suits.

Is it generally a waste of money to sue? You betcha. Does that mean that it's not against the law? No! You need to be aware that just because it's impractical to pursue legal action, it's not inappropriate to do so if you choose.

As for your nonsense about "nobody owes you a fair shake" (makes me think of a milkshake, mmm) I never said any such thing. I said that most employers cannot (and do not) fire people on the spot without reason - because there are laws in place under which they can (theoretically) be penalized.

ej, do u understand - IT DEPENDS ON THE STATE

in many jurisdictions, they CAN fire u "just because"

period

Ok, you lazy folks, I'm not making this up. Here is another lawyer's summation of the state of the law, and this guy is no fan of the at will doctrine:

"The doctrine of at-will employment, in which an employer can terminate employment at any time and for any reason, was invented by Horace Wood in his legal treatise that was published in 1877. Despite the fact that he offered no reason for his rule, and that none of his four citations supported his rule, courts in the USA rapidly adopted Wood's Rule as the common law. The Tennessee Supreme Court in 1884 declared that any reason included a "morally wrong" reason, a statement that is still the law in most of the USA today.

In my opinion, the doctrine of at-will employment was a major mistake, which continues to be propagated by judges with more respect for stare decisis, than either respect for fairness or desire to protect weaker parties from abuse.

Several commentators have expressed reasons why legislatures are unlikely to end the doctrine of at-will employment. And judges are reluctant to make broad public-policy exceptions to the doctrine of at-will employment. Thus, the law in the USA is currently in a stalemate.

I hope this essay encourages people in the USA to write their state legislators and demand a statute that protects employees from arbitrary, abusive, or wrongful termination of employment."

EJ, I'll give you two things. One is that most employers are smart enough to further protect themselves by setting up internal procedures to govern terminations so that employees at least appear to be treated equally. Second, in some states the at will doctrine has become pockmarked with exceptions. However, it is still he majority view.

bmc, i totally disagree. why should employment with any particular employer be some sort of "right" that they have to have cause to fire you from? if u want job security, there ARE companies/jobs that have employment contracts, unions, and/or u can move to a sate that does not have the 'at will' doctrine.

but the idea that employers should be mandated to justify a firing is kind of chilling and dismissive of rights of private employers imo

Pamps, while our opinions fall in line on this individual issue, I think that it's pretty bizarre that you think the idea that employers should have to justify their firing practices is "chilling and dismissive of rights of private employers". Especially considering the new problem our country currently has with age discrimination. I think that people who are fired have every right to expect their employers to justify their termination, especially if they are almost retirement age and their pensions have already been withheld.

I agree with the truth here. No way is this dismissive of company rights, emloyees have rights too!! This again is entirely cultural being firstly British and secondly European (where employees have all the rights in many countries- laws that would have lead to easy dismissal of young workers caused rioting in France until the president backed down).

If however you can fire people on a whim then it is a gender non-issue. If you can't, issues that are going to be sack-able offences should be discussed openly first, and have a contractual obligation to inform you so.

first of all (in the US), you can draw up any contract u like .

if u want to work for an employer that cannot fire u at will, then there are tons of private sector jobs (and nearly all public sector jobs) that will fit that bill

i do not believe there is some kind of "right" to keep your job, absent same sort of conditions mentioned

i realize you come from a different culture. i respect your pov. i just totally 100% disagree with it

yes, employees have rights. primary among those is the right to seek work ELSEWHERE if they so desire. and with defined contribution plans, the pension issue is a nonissue. the vast majority of private employers use defined contribution, not defined benefit plans. so, it is not problematic in that regard

what is key here is that these things can (and should be) on the table PRIOR to employment

i would much rather see a system where a market can determine various contracts without the heavy hand of govt. stepping in and saying all employers in all job classifications need to justify firings.

that is detrimental to a robust economy and a huge drag on businesses, (especially smaller ones)

what is key here is that these things can (and should be) on the table PRIOR to employment

agreed!

Pamps, I was just quoting someone else. Not my opinion. My family has owned small businesses, and subject to the statutory protections already in place, a support the at will doctrine. It is very difficult to justify a for cause firing because many firings have a multitude of reasons, some legitimate and some not so much. I think employees can BEST protect themselves by keeping up their skills so they can seek alternative employment. Lawsuits are generally just not a practical means of redress for most people. Not that I don't sympythize with many sentiments expressed here. When my mother told her employer she was pregnant with me, she was fired on the spot. So believe me, I'm not in the employer is always right camp at all.

yes.

there is also a sense of always looking at this from the employees side since most of us, and most people, are employees not employers. it's a natual "position bias" so to speak.

remember that it is not in an employers best interest to arbitrarily fire people. it costs money to train people, bring them up to speed, and a good employee is an ASSET that any intelligent and profit-seeking employer will WANT to retain.

the marketplace is remarkably efficient in this regard.

also, generally speaking, i think the move away from defined benefit pensions and towards defined contribution plans, 401k's, 403(b)'s etc. is an excellent move for both employees and employers.

in the past, it was very common for an employee to stick with one employer for 20 yrs +. but now, these portable plans give ownership to the individual as to their retirement goals

this empowers the employee, as they do not feel the need to stay in a rubbish job merely to get the pension.