T Nation

Catholic Teacher Fired

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/24/45890.htm

FORT WAYNE, Ind. (CN) - A schoolteacher claims in Federal Court that the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend and St. Vincent de Paul School fired her and called her a “grave, immoral sinner” because she and her husband were trying to have a baby through in vitro fertilization.
Emily Herx says she received the highest marks in her evaluations during her tenure as an English teacher at St. Vincent from August 2003 until she was fired on June 22, 2011.
Herx, who did not teach religion, “was not required to complete any training or education in the Catholic faith as a part of her employment,” she says in the complaint.

 She says she and her husband sought in vitro fertilization because she "suffers from a diagnosed medical condition which causes infertility."
 Shen she told her principal about the treatment, she says, the principal told her, "You are in my prayers." She says the principal did not object when she scheduled days off for her in vitro fertilization treatment.
 But more than a year later, after requesting time off for a second round of IVF treatment, she says, she was told to meet with Msgr. John Kuzmich, pastor of the St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church in Fort Wayne.
 Herx says that Kuzmich told her at the meeting "that another teacher had complained that Herx and her husband were undergoing IVF treatment."

 "On May 24, 2011, Herx, her husband, and her father met with Msgr. Kuzmich and [St. Vincent Principal Sandra] Guffey," the complaint states. "Msgr. Kuzmich repeatedly told Herx that she was a 'grave, immoral sinner' and that it would cause a 'scandal' if anyone was to find out that St. Vincent de Paul had a teacher who received fertility treatment. Msgr. Kuzmich told Herx that this situation would not have occurred had no one found out about the treatments, and that some things were 'better left between the individual and God.'"
 During that meeting, Herx says, Kuzmich confirmed that she was "an excellent teacher" and that "her performance had nothing to do with the decision to terminate her employment."

 Herx adds at that that meeting, "Msgr. Kuzmich asked Herx questions about the medical treatment. His questions made it clear that he did not understand the medical treatments actually administered to Herx and her husband by a duly licensed medical doctor and was, instead, relying on uninformed assumptions about fertility treatment in general."
 Herx says she was fired for "[i]mproprieties related to Church teachings or Law."
 She said an appeal to Bishop Kevin Rhoades was unsuccessful.
 "Bishop Rhoades refused to renew Herx's contract, stating that 'The process of in vitro fertilization very frequently involves the deliberate destruction or freezing of human embryos,' and 'In vitro fertilization ... is an intrinsic evil, which means that no circumstances can justify it.' Herx's appeal to the Bishop was the final step in the administrative appeals process within the Diocese."

 Herx says no embryos were destroyed during her treatment, but was fired even after informing Kuzmich and Guffey of that fact. Herx adds that the diocese's insurance plan, which is self-funded, covered her visits to her fertility doctor.
 Herx says she was fired even though the defendants still employ teachers who do not regularly attend Catholic mass; who are divorced (including Guffey); who have had hysterectomies, vasectomies and other procedures that have altered their reproductive organs; and who use contraceptives.

 At no time did the defendants provide any training or policies to explain what is and is not acceptable regarding fertility treatments, Herx says.
 She seeks actual and punitive damages for violations of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. She is represented by Kathleen DeLaney, of Indianapolis. 

[quote]therajraj wrote:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/24/45890.htm

FORT WAYNE, Ind. (CN) - A schoolteacher claims in Federal Court that the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend and St. Vincent de Paul School fired her and called her a “grave, immoral sinner” because she and her husband were trying to have a baby through in vitro fertilization.
Emily Herx says she received the highest marks in her evaluations during her tenure as an English teacher at St. Vincent from August 2003 until she was fired on June 22, 2011.
Herx, who did not teach religion, “was not required to complete any training or education in the Catholic faith as a part of her employment,” she says in the complaint.

 She says she and her husband sought in vitro fertilization because she "suffers from a diagnosed medical condition which causes infertility."
 Shen she told her principal about the treatment, she says, the principal told her, "You are in my prayers." She says the principal did not object when she scheduled days off for her in vitro fertilization treatment.
 But more than a year later, after requesting time off for a second round of IVF treatment, she says, she was told to meet with Msgr. John Kuzmich, pastor of the St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church in Fort Wayne.
 Herx says that Kuzmich told her at the meeting "that another teacher had complained that Herx and her husband were undergoing IVF treatment."

 "On May 24, 2011, Herx, her husband, and her father met with Msgr. Kuzmich and [St. Vincent Principal Sandra] Guffey," the complaint states. "Msgr. Kuzmich repeatedly told Herx that she was a 'grave, immoral sinner' and that it would cause a 'scandal' if anyone was to find out that St. Vincent de Paul had a teacher who received fertility treatment. Msgr. Kuzmich told Herx that this situation would not have occurred had no one found out about the treatments, and that some things were 'better left between the individual and God.'"
 During that meeting, Herx says, Kuzmich confirmed that she was "an excellent teacher" and that "her performance had nothing to do with the decision to terminate her employment."

 Herx adds at that that meeting, "Msgr. Kuzmich asked Herx questions about the medical treatment. His questions made it clear that he did not understand the medical treatments actually administered to Herx and her husband by a duly licensed medical doctor and was, instead, relying on uninformed assumptions about fertility treatment in general."
 Herx says she was fired for "[i]mproprieties related to Church teachings or Law."
 She said an appeal to Bishop Kevin Rhoades was unsuccessful.
 "Bishop Rhoades refused to renew Herx's contract, stating that 'The process of in vitro fertilization very frequently involves the deliberate destruction or freezing of human embryos,' and 'In vitro fertilization ... is an intrinsic evil, which means that no circumstances can justify it.' Herx's appeal to the Bishop was the final step in the administrative appeals process within the Diocese."

 Herx says no embryos were destroyed during her treatment, but was fired even after informing Kuzmich and Guffey of that fact. Herx adds that the diocese's insurance plan, which is self-funded, covered her visits to her fertility doctor.
 Herx says she was fired even though the defendants still employ teachers who do not regularly attend Catholic mass; who are divorced (including Guffey); who have had hysterectomies, vasectomies and other procedures that have altered their reproductive organs; and who use contraceptives.

 At no time did the defendants provide any training or policies to explain what is and is not acceptable regarding fertility treatments, Herx says.
 She seeks actual and punitive damages for violations of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. She is represented by Kathleen DeLaney, of Indianapolis. [/i][/quote]

And there it is folks, the compassion and understanding of god and his fan club.

So what say you, theists among us, is this a case of “grave, immoral sin”? Was the teacher’s firing warranted?

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

And there it is folks, the compassion and understanding of god and his fan club.

So what say you, theists among us, is this a case of “grave, immoral sin”? Was the teacher’s firing warranted?

[/quote]

Oh brother. The problem is the farming of embryos. Making and disguarding embryos is tantamount to abortion. That’s the problem. Yes, this teacher’s firing was totally warranted. It’s a disgusting practice that is morally abhorrent and should be banned all together.

I know this doesn’t make sense to you, but we value human life, where as human life is about as valuable to you as getting gum stuck to your shoe. So I am not surprised you don’t get it.

But see that’s why you need religious people even if you hate them. We clean up all the morally disgusting shit you guys do.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/24/45890.htm

FORT WAYNE, Ind. (CN) - A schoolteacher claims in Federal Court that the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend and St. Vincent de Paul School fired her and called her a “grave, immoral sinner” because she and her husband were trying to have a baby through in vitro fertilization.
Emily Herx says she received the highest marks in her evaluations during her tenure as an English teacher at St. Vincent from August 2003 until she was fired on June 22, 2011.
Herx, who did not teach religion, “was not required to complete any training or education in the Catholic faith as a part of her employment,” she says in the complaint.

 She says she and her husband sought in vitro fertilization because she "suffers from a diagnosed medical condition which causes infertility."
 Shen she told her principal about the treatment, she says, the principal told her, "You are in my prayers." She says the principal did not object when she scheduled days off for her in vitro fertilization treatment.
 But more than a year later, after requesting time off for a second round of IVF treatment, she says, she was told to meet with Msgr. John Kuzmich, pastor of the St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church in Fort Wayne.
 Herx says that Kuzmich told her at the meeting "that another teacher had complained that Herx and her husband were undergoing IVF treatment."

 "On May 24, 2011, Herx, her husband, and her father met with Msgr. Kuzmich and [St. Vincent Principal Sandra] Guffey," the complaint states. "Msgr. Kuzmich repeatedly told Herx that she was a 'grave, immoral sinner' and that it would cause a 'scandal' if anyone was to find out that St. Vincent de Paul had a teacher who received fertility treatment. Msgr. Kuzmich told Herx that this situation would not have occurred had no one found out about the treatments, and that some things were 'better left between the individual and God.'"
 During that meeting, Herx says, Kuzmich confirmed that she was "an excellent teacher" and that "her performance had nothing to do with the decision to terminate her employment."

 Herx adds at that that meeting, "Msgr. Kuzmich asked Herx questions about the medical treatment. His questions made it clear that he did not understand the medical treatments actually administered to Herx and her husband by a duly licensed medical doctor and was, instead, relying on uninformed assumptions about fertility treatment in general."
 Herx says she was fired for "[i]mproprieties related to Church teachings or Law."
 She said an appeal to Bishop Kevin Rhoades was unsuccessful.
 "Bishop Rhoades refused to renew Herx's contract, stating that 'The process of in vitro fertilization very frequently involves the deliberate destruction or freezing of human embryos,' and 'In vitro fertilization ... is an intrinsic evil, which means that no circumstances can justify it.' Herx's appeal to the Bishop was the final step in the administrative appeals process within the Diocese."

 Herx says no embryos were destroyed during her treatment, but was fired even after informing Kuzmich and Guffey of that fact. Herx adds that the diocese's insurance plan, which is self-funded, covered her visits to her fertility doctor.
 Herx says she was fired even though the defendants still employ teachers who do not regularly attend Catholic mass; who are divorced (including Guffey); who have had hysterectomies, vasectomies and other procedures that have altered their reproductive organs; and who use contraceptives.

 At no time did the defendants provide any training or policies to explain what is and is not acceptable regarding fertility treatments, Herx says.
 She seeks actual and punitive damages for violations of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. She is represented by Kathleen DeLaney, of Indianapolis. [/i][/quote]

And there it is folks, the compassion and understanding of god and his fan club.

So what say you, theists among us, is this a case of “grave, immoral sin”? Was the teacher’s firing warranted?

[/quote]

Yes, IVF is grave and immoral. I don’t know enough about the situation to say whether the teacher’s firing is warranted.

Has to be a heck of a slow news day.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

And there it is folks, the compassion and understanding of god and his fan club.

So what say you, theists among us, is this a case of “grave, immoral sin”? Was the teacher’s firing warranted?

[/quote]

Oh brother. The problem is the farming of embryos. Making and disguarding embryos is tantamount to abortion. That’s the problem. Yes, this teacher’s firing was totally warranted. It’s a disgusting practice that is morally abhorrent and should be banned all together.

I know this doesn’t make sense to you, but we value human life, where as human life is about as valuable to you as getting gum stuck to your shoe. So I am not surprised you don’t get it.

But see that’s why you need religious people even if you hate them. We clean up all the morally disgusting shit you guys do. [/quote]

I posted this because I do not understand their policies as they appear inconsistent.

Aren’t vasectomies, hysterectomies and divorce immoral as well? How do you draw the distinction between these procedures and IVF?

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

And there it is folks, the compassion and understanding of god and his fan club.

So what say you, theists among us, is this a case of “grave, immoral sin”? Was the teacher’s firing warranted?

[/quote]

I say that the CC can come up with an infinite number of arbitrary rules, because its none of my business.

The problem here is not even about IVF, but rather how this school fired a person based on what she does on her own time. I will bet that this woman is not Catholic herself (one does not have to be Catholic to teach at a Catholic school), and may not have even been aware of the Catholic Church’s stance on IVF, I know I didn’t until I read this. Since her position did not require her to be a Catholic or to have any knowledge of Catholicism whatsoever, then they had no right to fire her for having IVF. Religious protections only go so far. If the school wants to only hire Catholics and require all teachers to strictly follow Catholic doctrine at all times, that is fine, but until they do so and make it know to all potential employees that that is the case, then they have no right to fire people for not following Catholic rules. As the article stated, people who work at that school have used condoms and other forms of birth control, as well as had vasectomies, all of which are also condemned by the Catholic Church. If none of these people were fired for not upholding Catholic doctrine I expect this woman to get a very large sum of money over this.

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
The problem here is not even about IVF, but rather how this school fired a person based on what she does on her own time. I will bet that this woman is not Catholic herself (one does not have to be Catholic to teach at a Catholic school), and may not have even been aware of the Catholic Church’s stance on IVF, I know I didn’t until I read this. Since her position did not require her to be a Catholic or to have any knowledge of Catholicism whatsoever, then they had no right to fire her for having IVF. Religious protections only go so far. If the school wants to only hire Catholics and require all teachers to strictly follow Catholic doctrine at all times, that is fine…[/quote]

And what right does anyone have telling a non-Catholic that they can’t accept work from Catholics, on the conditions expected of Catholics? Why should Catholics only have to right to take such employment?

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

And there it is folks, the compassion and understanding of god and his fan club.

So what say you, theists among us, is this a case of “grave, immoral sin”? Was the teacher’s firing warranted?

[/quote]

Oh brother. The problem is the farming of embryos. Making and disguarding embryos is tantamount to abortion. That’s the problem. Yes, this teacher’s firing was totally warranted. It’s a disgusting practice that is morally abhorrent and should be banned all together.

I know this doesn’t make sense to you, but we value human life, where as human life is about as valuable to you as getting gum stuck to your shoe. So I am not surprised you don’t get it.

But see that’s why you need religious people even if you hate them. We clean up all the morally disgusting shit you guys do. [/quote]

I posted this because I do not understand their policies as they appear inconsistent.

Aren’t vasectomies, hysterectomies and divorce immoral as well? How do you draw the distinction between these procedures and IVF?
[/quote]

Life is the line of distinction. If you have an embryo, you hold a life in your hand. Sperms and eggs are not human life, they parts of humans. But the embryo is a complete human life, just really, really tiny.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
The problem here is not even about IVF, but rather how this school fired a person based on what she does on her own time. I will bet that this woman is not Catholic herself (one does not have to be Catholic to teach at a Catholic school), and may not have even been aware of the Catholic Church’s stance on IVF, I know I didn’t until I read this. Since her position did not require her to be a Catholic or to have any knowledge of Catholicism whatsoever, then they had no right to fire her for having IVF. Religious protections only go so far. If the school wants to only hire Catholics and require all teachers to strictly follow Catholic doctrine at all times, that is fine…[/quote]

And what right does anyone have telling a non-Catholic that they can’t accept work from Catholics, on the conditions expected of Catholics? Why should Catholics only have to right to take such employment?
[/quote]

What?

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
The problem here is not even about IVF, but rather how this school fired a person based on what she does on her own time. I will bet that this woman is not Catholic herself (one does not have to be Catholic to teach at a Catholic school), and may not have even been aware of the Catholic Church’s stance on IVF, I know I didn’t until I read this. Since her position did not require her to be a Catholic or to have any knowledge of Catholicism whatsoever, then they had no right to fire her for having IVF. Religious protections only go so far. If the school wants to only hire Catholics and require all teachers to strictly follow Catholic doctrine at all times, that is fine…[/quote]

And what right does anyone have telling a non-Catholic that they can’t accept work from Catholics, on the conditions expected of Catholics? Why should Catholics only have to right to take such employment?
[/quote]

What?
[/quote]

You said it would be fine it they only hired Catholic teachers. Why would you exclude non-catholics who ARE willing to work under the moral judgment of a Catholic organization? Why make that decision (not allowing them to accept the job) for them?

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

And there it is folks, the compassion and understanding of god and his fan club.

So what say you, theists among us, is this a case of “grave, immoral sin”? Was the teacher’s firing warranted?

[/quote]

Oh brother. The problem is the farming of embryos. Making and disguarding embryos is tantamount to abortion. That’s the problem. Yes, this teacher’s firing was totally warranted. It’s a disgusting practice that is morally abhorrent and should be banned all together.

I know this doesn’t make sense to you, but we value human life, where as human life is about as valuable to you as getting gum stuck to your shoe. So I am not surprised you don’t get it.

But see that’s why you need religious people even if you hate them. We clean up all the morally disgusting shit you guys do. [/quote]

I posted this because I do not understand their policies as they appear inconsistent.

Aren’t vasectomies, hysterectomies and divorce immoral as well? How do you draw the distinction between these procedures and IVF?
[/quote]

Life is the line of distinction. If you have an embryo, you hold a life in your hand. Sperms and eggs are not human life, they parts of humans. But the embryo is a complete human life, just really, really tiny.[/quote]

The article stated no embryos were destroyed in the process though

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
The problem here is not even about IVF, but rather how this school fired a person based on what she does on her own time. I will bet that this woman is not Catholic herself (one does not have to be Catholic to teach at a Catholic school), and may not have even been aware of the Catholic Church’s stance on IVF, I know I didn’t until I read this. Since her position did not require her to be a Catholic or to have any knowledge of Catholicism whatsoever, then they had no right to fire her for having IVF. Religious protections only go so far. If the school wants to only hire Catholics and require all teachers to strictly follow Catholic doctrine at all times, that is fine…[/quote]

And what right does anyone have telling a non-Catholic that they can’t accept work from Catholics, on the conditions expected of Catholics? Why should Catholics only have to right to take such employment?
[/quote]

What?
[/quote]

You said it would be fine it they only hired Catholic teachers. Why would you exclude non-catholics who ARE willing to work under the moral judgment of a Catholic organization? Why make that decision (not allowing them to accept the job) for them?
[/quote]

That would be acceptable as well, but the school would need to provide the employees with the proper training about Catholic morality to make sure the employees understand what is required of them.

See, everyone rightfully gets an icky feeling about telling a Catholic organization what they may or may not require of Catholic employees. So, these same people will always say, “Then they should only be able to hire Catholics if that’s how they want to operate!” Well, wait a minute. Why would the government/legal system actively thwart the will of non-Catholics who accept the conditions?

"Emily Herx, a teacher at a Catholic school in Indiana, reportedly told her principal that she needed time off to seek in vitro fertilization treatments. He gave her his blessing (literally!) and sent her on her way, according to the Daily Mail. But when she was about to take on a second round of IVF treatments, she was allegedly called in to see the school?s church pastor, who promptly informed her that she?s a ?grave, immoral sinner? and that, oh yea, she was going to lose her job. "

Does the fact that her boss gave his blessings before she proceeded matter at all to you guys? Don’t you think it’s a little ridiculous for your boss to give you the okay on an action and still get fired for it?

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
The problem here is not even about IVF, but rather how this school fired a person based on what she does on her own time. I will bet that this woman is not Catholic herself (one does not have to be Catholic to teach at a Catholic school), and may not have even been aware of the Catholic Church’s stance on IVF, I know I didn’t until I read this. Since her position did not require her to be a Catholic or to have any knowledge of Catholicism whatsoever, then they had no right to fire her for having IVF. Religious protections only go so far. If the school wants to only hire Catholics and require all teachers to strictly follow Catholic doctrine at all times, that is fine, but until they do so and make it know to all potential employees that that is the case, then they have no right to fire people for not following Catholic rules. As the article stated, people who work at that school have used condoms and other forms of birth control, as well as had vasectomies, all of which are also condemned by the Catholic Church. If none of these people were fired for not upholding Catholic doctrine I expect this woman to get a very large sum of money over this.[/quote]

I doubt that. I am sure her contract state grave violations of basic moral teachings of the church will get you ass fired. You can’t work there and have abortions and shit. They will can you for that type of stuff.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
The problem here is not even about IVF, but rather how this school fired a person based on what she does on her own time. I will bet that this woman is not Catholic herself (one does not have to be Catholic to teach at a Catholic school), and may not have even been aware of the Catholic Church’s stance on IVF, I know I didn’t until I read this. Since her position did not require her to be a Catholic or to have any knowledge of Catholicism whatsoever, then they had no right to fire her for having IVF. Religious protections only go so far. If the school wants to only hire Catholics and require all teachers to strictly follow Catholic doctrine at all times, that is fine, but until they do so and make it know to all potential employees that that is the case, then they have no right to fire people for not following Catholic rules. As the article stated, people who work at that school have used condoms and other forms of birth control, as well as had vasectomies, all of which are also condemned by the Catholic Church. If none of these people were fired for not upholding Catholic doctrine I expect this woman to get a very large sum of money over this.[/quote]

I doubt that. I am sure her contract state grave violations of basic moral teachings of the church will get you ass fired. You can’t work there and have abortions and shit. They will can you for that type of stuff.[/quote]

I do not doubt that. I have been offered jobs at Catholic schools, and almost accepted one. I even asked if I had to be a Catholic or had to follow Catholic law and I was told no. I even looked over the employment contract and it had nothing in there about that stuff. If this school is anything like the one I almost worked at, then it would not have anything in there about that. If it did, the school would also be firing people for using condoms, birth control, and having vasectomies or even getting a divorce.

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
The problem here is not even about IVF, but rather how this school fired a person based on what she does on her own time. I will bet that this woman is not Catholic herself (one does not have to be Catholic to teach at a Catholic school), and may not have even been aware of the Catholic Church’s stance on IVF, I know I didn’t until I read this. Since her position did not require her to be a Catholic or to have any knowledge of Catholicism whatsoever, then they had no right to fire her for having IVF. Religious protections only go so far. If the school wants to only hire Catholics and require all teachers to strictly follow Catholic doctrine at all times, that is fine, but until they do so and make it know to all potential employees that that is the case, then they have no right to fire people for not following Catholic rules. As the article stated, people who work at that school have used condoms and other forms of birth control, as well as had vasectomies, all of which are also condemned by the Catholic Church. If none of these people were fired for not upholding Catholic doctrine I expect this woman to get a very large sum of money over this.[/quote]

I doubt that. I am sure her contract state grave violations of basic moral teachings of the church will get you ass fired. You can’t work there and have abortions and shit. They will can you for that type of stuff.[/quote]

I do not doubt that. I have been offered jobs at Catholic schools, and almost accepted one. I even asked if I had to be a Catholic or had to follow Catholic law and I was told no. I even looked over the employment contract and it had nothing in there about that stuff. If this school is anything like the one I almost worked at, then it would not have anything in there about that. If it did, the school would also be firing people for using condoms, birth control, and having vasectomies or even getting a divorce.[/quote]

All schools do that, it’s just different moral standards. Posing for playboy or posting racist jokes on Facebook will get you canned at a public school. I don’t see how this is different.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
The problem here is not even about IVF, but rather how this school fired a person based on what she does on her own time. I will bet that this woman is not Catholic herself (one does not have to be Catholic to teach at a Catholic school), and may not have even been aware of the Catholic Church’s stance on IVF, I know I didn’t until I read this. Since her position did not require her to be a Catholic or to have any knowledge of Catholicism whatsoever, then they had no right to fire her for having IVF. Religious protections only go so far. If the school wants to only hire Catholics and require all teachers to strictly follow Catholic doctrine at all times, that is fine, but until they do so and make it know to all potential employees that that is the case, then they have no right to fire people for not following Catholic rules. As the article stated, people who work at that school have used condoms and other forms of birth control, as well as had vasectomies, all of which are also condemned by the Catholic Church. If none of these people were fired for not upholding Catholic doctrine I expect this woman to get a very large sum of money over this.[/quote]

I doubt that. I am sure her contract state grave violations of basic moral teachings of the church will get you ass fired. You can’t work there and have abortions and shit. They will can you for that type of stuff.[/quote]

I do not doubt that. I have been offered jobs at Catholic schools, and almost accepted one. I even asked if I had to be a Catholic or had to follow Catholic law and I was told no. I even looked over the employment contract and it had nothing in there about that stuff. If this school is anything like the one I almost worked at, then it would not have anything in there about that. If it did, the school would also be firing people for using condoms, birth control, and having vasectomies or even getting a divorce.[/quote]

All schools do that, it’s just different moral standards. Posing for playboy or posting racist jokes on Facebook will get you canned at a public school. I don’t see how this is different.[/quote]

It is different because the public school contracts state what kind of behavior is inappropriate and we are trained on what is and is not acceptable for us to do in public (I teach at a public university). Catholic school employment contracts do not state that one has to follow Catholic morality and the teachers are not trained in Catholic morality. If the school wants to do that, then fine, but it needs to be put into the employment contracts and they need to train the employees on acceptable moral behavior. They do not currently do that and so do not have the right to fire employees, especially ones who do not know about Catholic morality, for not following it.