Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Jury Sides with Ohio Teacher Fired While Pregnant
This is a very interesting case of civil rights/religious issues. I think the article says the archdiocese is expected to appeal but I'm not sure if they will be successful. What do you all think?
Re: Jury Sides with Ohio Teacher Fired While Pregnant
I think this is a messy business of church and state.
I support a religious organization's right to state and act on what they will and will not support.
The state and it's protectors do not like it when the church or religion interferes or has a presence, the same needs to be afforded to the religious organizations; they have a right to support or not support something they believe is immoral or against their long-held teachings and doctrines.
And, pregnancy or method by which someone gets pregnant, is not a civil rights matter.
Pregnancy is a civil right. Women are protected from being fired due to pregnancy under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Yes, I agree the law states that someone may not be fired because they are pregnant.
I just read the Act. And I don't see any language in it that dictates whether or not a woman is protected from termination if a private employer disagrees with the method by which she got pregnant.
It doens't sound like her pregnancy is the issue in this case. It sounds like the issue is the method by which she came to conceive and that this method is what's up for debate.
Also, if she signed a contract, she signed a contract. She knowingly signed something agreeing to what was blatantly laid out in front of her. She went in with eyes wide open. She wasn't duped here.
The fact of the matter is, when you sign a contract you are obliged by contract law to fulfill what the contract states you will and will not do or say. She violated a contract. Plain and simple.
I see that it is a sticky issue of religious versus civil rights. But when she signed that contract agreeing to the religious positions of her employer, she gave up some autonomy for her latter personal decisions.
I understand that this isn't a warm and fuzzy response.
But cases like this mean that contracts have absolutely no bearing. When courts rule in favor of breaking contracts, ones where people entered into them fully conscious, aware, free-thinking and not under duress, we are weaking the laws pertaining to contracts.
She has every right to be pregnant and not be fired. But her employer has every right to insist on employees abiding by their (the employer's) terms of employment. This job was not forced up on her. She gave up some of her rights when she accepted their offer of employment.
The fact of the matter is, when you sign a contract you are obliged by contract law to fulfill what the contract states you will and will not do or say. She violated a contract. Plain and simple.
Actually, it's not plain and simple. Contracts are held to be unenforceable on many occasions. Specific provisions of contracts can be unenforceable for violating applicable laws. You can't enforce a contract to do something illegal, for example.
But cases like this mean that contracts have absolutely no bearing. When courts rule in favor of breaking contracts, ones where people entered into them fully conscious, aware, free-thinking and not under duress, we are weaking the laws pertaining to contracts.
Again, not true. Even if you enter in a contract under no duress, it can still be unenforceable if it violates applicable law.
She has every right to be pregnant and not be fired. But her employer has every right to insist on employees abiding by their (the employer's) terms of employment. This job was not forced up on her. She gave up some of her rights when she accepted their offer of employment.
This is the issue - can her employer enforce a contract that in essence violates applicable law (pregnancy discrimination act)?
It will be interesting what happens on appeal...
I didn't state anything in my post about illegal contracts being enforceable just because they are contracts. And, it doesn't seem that the contract this woman entered into was illegal (in fact, I would wager that the religious organizatinon in question, due to its size, probably had a legal team draw up and review all of their employment contracts to protect against errors and illegal language)...it doesn't break the law, nor did it take advantage of her, and she was not acting under duress.
But, also under "applicable law" as you termed it, is the organization's First Amendment right to "freedom of religion." As a religious organization, they are allowed to pursue their religion as they see fit and if people join them, under their own free will, by way of employment, then those individuals would fall under their religious umbrella, so to speak.
In a case where seemingly two Amendments/Rights to the Constitution are on opposing sides, should the Amendment "ranked higher" in the amendment/right list trump the other?
In this case, freedom of religion versus civil rights/pregnancy matter? Or, should the case be favored for the individual (the woman here) versus the collective (the religous organization)?
I don't know. I'm just curious if there is any predcent on this sort of thing.
I know you didn't say anything about it being illegal but that is one example of when a contract can be unenforceable (that's why I said, "for example"). You said a "contract is a contract" implying that all contracts are enforceable and I was just pointing out that that's not always the case.Enforcing the provision in this particular contract could be in violation of applicable law (which is a common legal term btw) if it violates the pregnancy discrimination act.
Constitutional Amendments don't trump one another on the basis of order -- [but I kinda wish they would for a sec because if that were the case, then freedom of assembly should trump second amendment right in my opinion
]. I do think more value is placed on individual freedoms as opposed to institutional freedoms, although I don't know if I always agree with that.
I'm sure there are some similar cases that have been tried in the past (I bet the briefs have references to some of them) but I haven't actually read them. I never read the court pleadings etc either so a lot of my opinion is based on what I heard on the news.
It will be interesting to see how it pans out...
Doesn't this typically only apply when the religious organization is acting like a religion organization? Meaning, running a church, temple, mosque, etc.?
When a religious organization runs a business (school, hospital, craft store, fast-food chicken place, etc.) they must abide by the same business practices as secular businesses.