Fired teacher suing diocese

Trader · #1 Apr 25, '12, 9:57 am

http://www.fortwayne.com/apps/pbcs.d...439/-1/TOPNEWS

The lawsuit was filed after the EEOC found our diocese guilty of sex discrimination and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under the ADA infertility is considered a disability. Interestingly enough, the HHS mandate requires insurance coverage to prevent pregnacy, but not to treat infertility.

The Catholic Church has no problem with treating infertility by moral means and even paid for the teacher's in vitro fertility treatments from their self funded insurance plan. I have known Msgr Kuzmich since 1984 when he was rector of my current parish and during the summer I attend mass at his current parish. I am absolutely certain he is misquoted in the article.

Is this still another case of the federal government telling religious schools that they must act against their own teachings? I think so. The central issue is that the Church has both the right and the duty not to hire people who act against our moral teachings in a public way.

Aelred Minor · #2 Apr 25, '12, 10:52 am

She wasn't fired because she is a woman or because she is infertile, so where is the sex or disability discrimination?

garn9173 · #3 Apr 25, '12, 11:07 am

I would appreicate if a legal expert could chime in and explain how and/or if this case is similar to the 9-0 Supreme Court decision from earlier this year ( Hosanna-Tabor ruling).

PaulinVA · #4 Apr 25, '12, 11:33 am

This is just a run-of-the-mill firing for not following Catholic teaching.

And, actually, having a contract not renewed for a school teacher isn't really a firing, is it? That's why you get a new contract every year - the old one has been fulfilled.

Trader · #5 Apr 25, '12, 11:37 am

Many years ago, another teacher at that same school and her husband had difficulty in conceiving a child. They treated the condition with a pilgrimage to a shrine in Ohio. It worked pretty well because their sixth daughter is my god-daughter.

I am also awaiting a reply from my brother who is a diocesan school board member in another state. I am pretty sure this situation is covered by the standard teacher contract.

Eleve · #6 Apr 25, '12, 11:41 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by garn9173

I would appreicate if a legal expert could chime in and explain how and/or if this case is similar to the 9-0 Supreme Court decision from earlier this year ( Hosanna-Tabor ruling).

I won't claim to be a legal expert, but as a legal amateur: the significant difference that the EEOC is claiming is that the woman involved is not a minister. Hosanna-Tabor found that churches are immune to lawsuits over hiring and firing ministers. However, this doesn't apply to non-ministers: so a church couldn't fire a janitor for being black and then claim that they're exempt as a religious institution.

If the plaintiff really is just a language arts teacher, with no ministerial duties, then the finding of Hosanna-Tabor would not apply, and the diocese would still be (potentially) liable.

Rence · #7 Apr 25, '12, 11:44 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

She wasn't fired because she is a woman or because she is infertile, so where is the sex or disability discrimination?

From the article:

Quote:

“Defendants similarly employ male teachers … who have received medical treatments or procedures, including vasectomies, which effect or alter their fertility,” according to the lawsuit. “Defendants employ male teachers … who use contraceptives … who have received fertility treatment or their spouses have received fertility treatments.”

They better get their act together. If they're going to hold one teacher accountable to a morality clause then they had better hold them all to the same standards.

If the diocese didn't add a 'morality clause' to her contract, they'll probably lose this case. She's not Catholic and was not required to complete any training in Catholic teachings.

Jim Dandy · #8 Apr 25, '12, 12:26 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trader

http://www.fortwayne.com/apps/pbcs.d...439/-1/TOPNEWS

The Catholic Church has no problem with treating infertility by moral means and even paid for the teacher's in vitro fertility treatments from their self funded insurance plan. .

This is shocking, if true. The Catholic Church teaches that IVF is a mortal sin, a violation of the Natural Law. Why would any Catholic institution pay for it?

Trader · #9 Apr 25, '12, 1:26 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Dandy

This is shocking, if true. The Catholic Church teaches that IVF is a mortal sin, a violation of the Natural Law. Why would any Catholic institution pay for it?

I found it shocking also. My best guess at this point is that diocese did not know exactly what it was paying for. They got a bill from one of their insured employees and they paid it. I know some of the parties involved pretty well and there is now way Msgr Kuzmich or Bishop Rhoades would have approved it.

Trader · #10 Apr 25, '12, 1:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rence

From the article:

They better get their act together. If they're going to hold one teacher accountable to a morality clause then they had better hold them all to the same standards.

If the diocese didn't add a 'morality clause' to her contract, they'll probably lose this case. She's not Catholic and was not required to complete any training in Catholic teachings.

I agree all should be held to the same standard, but for most of the others, the school would have no way of knowing who does or does not practice contraception. Not all fertility treatments are immoral. If this teacher had not asked for time off for a second round of IVF, she may never have been found out.

I am pretty sure, but not positive, that a morality clause is part of the standard contract. In my old diocese where my brother is a board member, teachers are specifically prohibited from publicly criticizing the bishop, pastor, or principal. I personally know of cases where teachers were fired for marrying outside the Church.

**JonNC** · #11 Apr 25, '12, 2:46 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eleve

I won't claim to be a legal expert, but as a legal amateur: the significant difference that the EEOC is claiming is that the woman involved is not a minister. Hosanna-Tabor found that churches are immune to lawsuits over hiring and firing ministers. However, this doesn't apply to non-ministers: so a church couldn't fire a janitor for being black and then claim that they're exempt as a religious institution.

If the plaintiff really is just a language arts teacher, with no ministerial duties, then the finding of Hosanna-Tabor would not apply, and the diocese would still be (potentially) liable.

THe Tabor Hosanna case was about a teacher. The school claimed rightly that, regardless of the subjects taught, she was a minister. My daughter is a Lutheran school teacher, and she is referred to as a minister, part of the ministry team, though not to be confused with an ordained pastor.

I don't know the facts of this case, but it seems quite similar to Tabor Hasaqnna, at least on first blush.

Trader · #12 Apr 25, '12, 3:03 pm

My brother, who is on the school board of a large diocese in Illinois just told me that in his diocese there are five standard contracts, but the individual parish does not have to use any of them.

You might want to make inquiries in your own parish or diocese about a standard morality clause for church employees, unless you want to budget for a lot more legal fees in the future. Don't panic yet, but we Catholics are definitely under attack from many sides.

Also, he also mentioned that the USCCB has recently recommended that all Catholic high schools include 8 semesters of religion classes. My old high school is objecting to that. They already had that back in the '60's when I graduated, but they just hate being told what to do. The Benedictines operate the school independent of the diocese and love to say their tuition is lower than the diocesan high schools.

**Dale_M** · #13 Apr 25, '12, 3:34 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonNC

THe Tabor Hosanna case was about a teacher. The school claimed rightly that, regardless of the subjects taught, she was a minister. My daughter is a Lutheran school teacher, and she is referred to as a minister, part of the ministry team, though not to be confused with an ordained pastor.

I don't know the facts of this case, but it seems quite similar to Tabor Hasaqnna, at least on first blush.

I don't think this new case is similar to Tabor-Hosanna. In that case. the teacher led prayer and devotional services, taught religion, and was officially a "called teacher" who was commissioned as a lay minister. I think that was a very different situation than in this new case.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/ne...liberty-cases/

**Dale_M** · #14 Apr 25, '12, 3:38 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rence

From the article:
They better get their act together. If they're going to hold one teacher accountable to a morality clause then they had better hold them all to the same standards.

If the diocese didn't add a 'morality clause' to her contract, they'll probably lose this case. She's not Catholic and was not required to complete any training in Catholic teachings.

But will a morality clause hold up if no attempt is made by the employer to inform the teacher about morality requirements? The teacher told her supervisor that she would get in vitro fertilization. A year later, she told her principal she needed time off for in vitro fertilization. And only after a second year, and a second round of in vitro, was she called to account.

Dawnia · #15 Apr 25, '12, 3:59 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trader

I found it shocking also. My best guess at this point is that diocese did not know exactly what it was paying for. They got a bill from one of their insured employees and they paid it. I know some of the parties involved pretty well and there is now way Msgr Kuzmich or Bishop Rhoades would have approved it.

In the article they kept referring to it as fertility treatments and no IVF.