Woman Sues Christian University After Being Fired for Becoming Pregnant Out of Wedlock

EUGENE, Ore. — An assistant professor at a Christian university in Oregon has filed suit after she says that she was fired for becoming pregnant out of wedlock.

Cory Richardson is seeking $650,000 in damages from Northwest Christian University for what she believes in wrongful termination. Richards, 35, was fired last month, and is a single mother of two children from a previous relationship. She has been with her current boyfriend for twelve years.


Translation: Whenever something bad happens to a modern liberal, someone else is responsible.

Did she make public her relationship? :confused:

No wonder the Christian effort is floundering in this country.

Future women in the same situation may just choose to abort, rather than face that kind of opprobrium.


yes. by getting pregnant and refusing to get married or publicly admit her sin.

The problem here is that she is showing no public remorse for getting caught fornicating.

Well, this sounds to me like merciless un-Christian cruelty, without any canonical grounds. :confused:

One thing if she were fired for living in state of sin openly. Because this is a lasting commitment.

Another thing - being fired for getting pregnant! This is a sign of some past mistake, which a person may have already repented.

Having sex out of marriage is a sin. Being a parent to a child out of wedlock is not! Childbirth is always good in the eyes of God.

Really, would it have been better if she had used contraceptives or performed an abortion?!

Not very Christian of the university.

Most universities have employment agreements. I would like to see if this is mentioned in hers.
If they knew she was living with her boyfriend, did they think she was living as brother and sister? Perhaps they should have confronted the situation sooner rather than later. (assuming they knew.)


If the terms of employment, the handbook, etc., are clear about the morals and ethics of the employees, she id bound to either abide by them, or not be employed there. If there is not that understanding in the terms of employment, then it seems a difficult task to defend the firing.

Additionally, I’m not sure a university such as this falls under the ministerial exception, or even if the university considers its professors as ministers.

© Since the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other employment discrimination laws, the Courts of Appeals have uniformly recognized the existence of a “ministerial exception,” grounded in the First Amendment, that precludes application of such legislation to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers. The Court agrees that there is such a ministerial exception. Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.



This is kind of interesting:

She is now alleging discrimination, as she asserts that men at the university who had fathered children out of wedlock were not similarly terminated.

If she can prove that these men fathered children out of wedlock and the university knew but did not punish them in the same way they are punishing her, that would certainly be evidence of unjust discrimination.

She has been with her current boyfriend for 12 years. She’s fornicating and refusing the obey Christ.

Christ talked about divorce, but did he actually ever say anything about fornicating? :shrug:

Why not? Permitting her to stay on would be sending a mixed message. A couple of years ago, there was a lesbian couple attending the local Church. Everything was hunky-dory until they wanted to become Eucharistic Ministers. They were told it would be sending a mixed message. Can’t you see that?

True repentence is not just feeling sorry for something bad or wrong that you did; it also includes wanting to turn from the bad or wrong and do what is right… like maybe, in this case, marrying the boyfriend-of-twelve-years and not continuing to live as she has been :shrug:

And as for the “men at the university who had fathered children out of wedlock [who] were not similarly terminated” – I for one can’t look at a male and tell whether or not he fathered children out of wedlock. But I would say it’s a bit more obvious when a female who is known to be unmarried becomes pregnant (though of course not right away).

Kicking her out sends a much stronger and more negative message.

They don’t know what her circumstances were and I’m sure they’ve committed plenty of sins themselves.

How would any of her students have known that she is unmarried? When I was attending a university, I rarely knew anything about the private lives of my professors, whether they were married or not married, single or divorced. I can’t actually remember any professor actually bringing this subject up in a class and I never asked. If a female professor becomes pregnant, her students might assume she’s married, but unless she says she isn’t how would most of them even know one way or the other and how would it be their business to know?

I suspect that true repentance was not likely. The linked article says that “Richards … is a single mother of two children from a previous relationship.”

In particular, it does not say (for example) that she is a divorced mother of two… so this appears to have been going on for way longer than 12 years.

Thanks for the link.

Only if you subscribe to tolerance as the ultimate good.

They don’t know what her circumstances were and I’m sure they’ve committed plenty of sins themselves.

As someone else pointed out, they aren’t obvious. I’m sure if one of them had robbed a bank, he’d lose his job as well.

To avoid appearing uncharitable, Christians must now not only tolerate evil, but they must fund it and validate it as well.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.