Catholic school teacher fired over in vitro backed

(CBS/AP) FORT WAYNE, Ind. -- Two national groups are throwing their support behind a former parochial school teacher who claims she was fired for trying to get pregnant through in vitro fertilization.

The Journal Gazette reports that the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the American Civil Liberties Union filed friends of the court briefs Monday in support of Emily Herx.

Herx filed a federal lawsuit in April against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend claiming that she was discriminated against for a disability when her teaching contract wasn't renewed.

Herx suffers from infertility. She underwent in vitro fertilization, which is banned under Roman Catholic doctrine. After church officials learned of her treatments they decided not to renew her contract.

The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission ruled in her favor in January.

The Journal Gazette reports the diocese wants the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the diocese is a religious employer acting in a way consistent with its beliefs.

[DOGGYPANTS]

Well, I don't feel that the school should have addressed this issue, but if they are paying the medical bill, then maybe they have a legal right
It doesn't seem fair, but affirmative action and diversity often ignore the best qualified people for jobs = standard operating procedure. So maybe the school has a right to fire, as it is a private religious institution.

[TiffanyinTexas]

Yeah, because we want to promote bigotry in this country and undermine the fundamental belief that all people are created equal. We want to make sure that people are not judged on ability and ensure that minorities find it very difficult to be hired or promoted and that your behavior outside of the workforce can be controlled by your employer.

Heck, if you are unhappy about outright discrimination and oppression just quit your job....I mean there are jobs just waiting to be filled all over the place can't you tell from the double digit unemployement we have right now?

[Adamantius1]

My point has nothing to do with legality. It is about fairness. (Something can be unfair but legal or illegal and fair.) Every human being throughout history has had an innate sense that some things are fair and some things aren't (though these things are metaphysical axioms that cannot be proved or disproved absolutely). One axiom of fairness is the principle of first-come-first-serve. That is, if Jones is first in line at a movie theater and Smith is behind him, it is only fair that Jones be admitted first. It would be unfair and unjust for Smith to be granted admission first. But that is exactly the mentality that so many people in the Western world have today: "Well, you know, yeah, Jones was there first, but he is more privileged than Smith. Smith doesn't have as much money as Jones and he's had a rough life, so he deserves to go first." Now, if Jones is a nice guy, he might volunteer to let Smith go first, but he should be under no legal obligation to do so. And I say that anyone who says otherwise has a TWISTED SENSE OF FAIRNESS. Another axiom of fairness is the principle we might dub, "you-build-it-you-call-the-shots." Hence, if Brown is an ultraorthodox Jewish farmer who has built a successful agricultural enterprise and is looking for a few farm hands (a cheesy example, I know, but it gets the point across), Brown should have every right to set the terms of employment, even if it means hiring only circumcised males who are ritually pure according to strict Jewish ceremonial procedures. But no, we live in a politically correct society that says "Brown can't do such a thing. It's bigotry! If O'Neil, an uncircumcised Catholic (or Protestant or atheist or whatever), wants to work for Brown, he shouldn't be turned away. That's discrimination, and no civilized society should tolerate such a thing." Again, I say that anyone who thinks this way has a TWISTED SENSE OF FAIRNESS and an entitlement mentality. "But what if Brown cheats and oppresses his farm hands," you ask, "Should he be permitted to do that as well, just because he is the owner?" That is different. A government DOES have an obligation to protect its people from violence and fraud, and every government from the dawn of time has recognized as much. Hence, Brown shouldn't have the right to beat his workers or to defrock them of their wages and pay them $5.00/hr when he promised them in a contract that he would pay them $10.00/hr. I am not advocating the abolition of anti-discrimination laws for government entities, only for private enterprise. It is only within the last few decades since the rise of the political correctness movement—and only in the Western world—that people have questioned such axioms of fairness. I know, that is because some of you think we are more enlightened than any other culture in history. I beg to differ. Discrimination can certainly be immoral, but no one can consistently maintain that it is the state's duty to ensure people act morally.

[titha2]

Brown may have built the farm but he certainly did rely on the community to achieve it - roads, irrigation, electricity, access to markets, etc. So, he may have some right to set the contract but the society has the right to set a minimum standard/threshold.

[cntrygirl3]

There is no mention of whether or not the woman is Catholic. I assume her health insurance wouldn't pay for this. So did someone see her at the clinic and report her to church authorities? Should a teacher at this school who buys condoms be terminated or a woman who gets birth control pills from a local pharmacy and is reported. It was smart of her to file this as a disability, even the church is not allowed to discriminate against someone who is disabled. If she is Catholic I assume she has been excommunicated and if she had a child by this method the church would refuse to baptize it. All of this though cruel is within the right of the church to do. However when it comes to work this is plain discrimination pure and simple. You go GIRL!!

[AOCGUY]

If this teacher was hired to teach religion then I can see how the church might have required her to be a Catholic. However if she was hired to teach math then her faith or even lack of it has nothing to do with her qualifications to do her job and therefore her adherance to the Catholic faith is and should not be a consideration as to her retention. Consrquently, unless she was in fact a practicing Catholic who was required to be so to keep her job then she was reminated inappropriately.

[nomorelibs]

If it was in her contract, then move on people, she signed it.

[TiffanyinTexas]

Yeah, because we want to promote bigotry in this country and undermine the fundamental belief that all people are created equal. We want to make sure that people are not judged on ability and ensure that minorities find it very difficult to be hired or promoted and that your behavior outside of the workforce can be controlled by your employer.

Heck, if you are unhappy about outright discrimination and oppression just quit your job....I mean there are jobs just waiting to be filled all over the place can't you tell from the double digit unemployement we have right now?

[AOCGUY]

Adamantius1 September 18, 2012 7:59 AM EDT
... For crying out loud, a Catholic school, which is funded and overseen by the local Catholic diocese, can't insist that its employees reflect its teachings?...

In a word - NO

[Mikexxxxxxx]

Oh, you mean like pedophilia of young boys?

[Xbeing]

Separation of Church and State goes both ways. In fact, this very principle was the real thought behind Jefferson's letter, not the other way around.

The Government is to have no say in the workings of the church, provided they were not detrimental to the congregations and/or others.

[ricktrick]

Funny how this cult didn't act according to their "religious" beliefs when their preists were abusing little boys. Or maybe they were?

[Xbeing]

shame on you! The failings and illness' of individuals does not factor to the whole. There have been plenty of pedophiles in public school, but we don't assume it's all the public school system.

And yes, the default procedures are the same, quietly dismiss with no record of the event or transfer to an area where they are unknown...

As for the record, there hasn't been reported sexual abuse from the church in along time, except for the individuals that waited 20 years. They have worked tirelessly to fix that problem.

[Adamantius1]

You see, this is where these ridiculous anti-discrimination laws lead. For crying out loud, a Catholic school, which is funded and overseen by the local Catholic diocese, can't insist that its employees reflect its teachings? If an Amish school wants to hire only Amish teachers, it should have that right, and if it discovers post facto that one of its teachers is in the army reserve (Amish are pacifists, mind you), it should have every right to terminate that person's employment. If a Muslim school wants to hire only Muslim teachers, it should have that right. The same is true of every business guided by a religious--or even a non-religious--creed. Heck, I say if an atheist organization wants to hire only atheists, it should have that right. We have become a nation of whiners.

[gjc1n1]

No one, and no group, has the inherent right to be a bigot without paying the consequences of illegal discrimination.

[ampsanne]

I feel that you are very right as to the way you explained it. Another thing her contract was coming up, so there may have been other reasons also, not just this one issue. But it's just like the Amish they do not believe in cars. And if an Amish teacher would come to school driving a car, it's against their beliefs, they would not allow it. So I feel it is the right of the school not to renew this teacher's contract.