FLORIDA: Christian School Teacher Sues After Being Fired For Pre-Marital Sex

[Ian David]

A teacher at a Christian school near Orlando has been fired after administrators did the math on her wedding day and the birth of her baby. She is suing under federal pregnancy discrimination laws.

Jarretta Hamilton, a former fourth-grade teacher at Southland Christian School in St. Cloud, said she approached administrators in April 2009, shortly after her wedding, to tell them she was pregnant and request maternity leave for the coming fall, WKMG-TV, Orlando, reported Wednesday. "That's when the question was posed to her, 'Did you conceive prior to marriage?'" said Edward Gay, Hamilton's lawyer. He said Hamilton told administrators the truth, the baby was conceived about three weeks before the wedding, and she was fired one week later without being allowed to finish the school year. Gay said he received a letter from Southland Christian School administrator Julie Ennis explaining the reasons for the termination. "Jarretta was asked not to return because of a moral issue that was disregarded, namely fornication -- sex outside of marriage," Ennis wrote. "We request that Jarretta withdraw her complaint and consider the testimony of the Lord."

The lawsuit also requests damages for invasion of privacy because parents and students were told why she was fired.

More:
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/06/florida-christian-school-teacher-sues.html



Southland Christian School
http://www.greatschools.org/florida/st.-cloud/4536-Southland-Christian-School/

[closeupready]

1. "..the testimony of the Lord." IMO, these people are so mentally ill.

What kind of 'fact' is a made-up statement claimed as truth based upon some old fairy tales?

[Taverner]

2. I feel bad for her and I hope she wins, but if you lie with dogs, you get fleas

[ChairmanAgnostic]

6. religious fleas are known to spread typhus & the plague

Just saying.

[Taverner]

12. Hell, Fundamentalist Fleas ARE the plague and they should be dealt with as such

[ChairmanAgnostic]

17. since it is happy hour, CHEERS!

agreed.

[Ezlivin]

3. To be fair, they are just as hard on gluttons

Every employee is slender and in good health.

Yeah, you betcha!

[DrDan]

4. apparently she was informed of the school's standards when applying for the job

and agreed to follow them at that time.

[darkstar3]

9. She has a case for invasion of privacy.

There was NO fucking reason for anyone else to be told why she was fired. Hell, I'm not sure, but that may even violate some labor laws, since employers in various states are VERY restricted on the amount and type of information they are allowed to release to other employers on their former employees.

(Did that sentence make sense?)

[DrDan]

13. that is very true - I have worked for 2 large

corporations in my career. In both cases, they would share only (1) that I was employed by them, (2) the approximate dates of my employment (3) the approximate salary and (3) that I was not terminated. If I remember correctly, they were very firm in not sharing anything beyond that for legal reasons.

So I think you may be correct - if they indeed did share that info with the parents.

[frebrd]

16. Yeah, but I'm sure religious institutions are exempt....

they seem to be exempt from just about everything (and getting more-so).

[indepat]

11. Wonder if any of the administrators who set the standards ever break any of God's laws: nah, surely

not for that would make them disingenuous and mendacious hypocrites. :P

[laconicsax]

20. Wow, just wow.

Is there no limit to the excuses that people will come up with?

It's always good to know that the big-tent has plenty of room for people who believe that an employer should own their employees.

[DrDan]

22. so the fact that she agreed to the standards . . . then sues when she violates those same standards

means nothing.

Wow. Just Wow.

Guess we know what your "word" is worth.

[darkstar3]

23. You don't know that there was such a standard imposed.

The story simply states that:

The letter said Hamilton was aware of the school's "standards, values, and purposes," but Gay said the morality clause does not override state and federal discrimination laws.

That's very vague, and unless you have a document that clearly shows one of the standards she agreed to through signature was "no premarital sex", you're making a big assumption.

[DrDan]

24. seems pretty clear

"The letter, which Gay provided to AOL News, says that Hamilton agreed in her job application to uphold standards related to the school's values."

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/florida-christian-school-dismisses-teacher-jarretta-hamilton-for-fornication/19509791

[darkstar3]

25. Still just a vague statement about "standards."

All employers have standards, even my completely secular one. Public schools have standards too. We need to know what those standards are before you can start assuming that she's in the wrong.

[DrDan]

26. she signed the employment application that clearly states that she

as a teacher, will " . . . maintain and communicate the values and purpose of our school."

If the school has written "values", she has no case.

[darkstar3]

28. Not true.

If the school has written "values", and those values include abstaining from pre-marital sex, and those values were made readily available to her and clear during the hiring process, AND those values are legally clear of discriminatory problems, THEN she has no discrimination case. Of course, she still has a privacy case.

Don't be so quick to blame the victim.

[DrDan]

29. pretty much what I said . . . .

if she signed that . . . . and if the school has written values that were shared and includes the firing offense.

Then no case.

[darkstar3]

30. Oh?

So now you're claiming that you DIDN'T make an assumption in #22 about her right to complain? Because it seemed to me that you were quick to blame the victim for this problem and that you've been trying to defend that action with assumptions about what she did and didn't agree to.

There wasn't a hint of "if" in your prior statements. Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.

[DrDan]

31. oh good lord - get a life

if she did not agree, then she has a case.
if the school did not formalize the standards, then she has a case.
if she was not made aware of the standards, then she has a case.
.

If she did sign that fully aware of the standards - then she has no right to sue.

[darkstar3]

34. Now THAT is correct,

and a very far cry from #22. As for your insult there to laconicsax and your inane "get a life", "why don't you go outside and play hide and go fuck yourself?"

[DrDan]

36. no change of opinion or of message on my part . . .

[darkstar3]

37. False, unless the word "no" means "significant".

You do realize that memory holes don't work on message boards?

[Tesha]

38. Actually, given that she was arguably dismissed for being pregnant, and *THAT* is a protected class,

a sharp lawyer can probably win her her case even if she *DID* know
about the standards.

I hope she kicks their asses.

Tesha

[DrDan]

41. was it because she was pregnant or because she had sex outside of marriage?

I thought the dismissal was because of the latter.

[Tesha]

48. It is whatever the attorneys convince the judge or jury.

The school chose to tread on VERY THIN legal ice.

Tesha

[laconicsax]

44. You make a very good point.

Even if the school argues that it was for having sex out of wedlock, their only evidence is that she's pregnant--in essence holding her pregnancy against her. If the school produces other evidence that they knew of her premarital relations, she could likely make a case against them for invasion of privacy.

[DrDan]

46. there you go again . . . way off base

she admitted it

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-06-08/news/os-christian-school-premarital-sex-20100607_1_school-staffers-pregnant-teachers-southland-christian-school


but of course, to some, that makes no difference

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrDan]

54. she has no case . . . her firing will stand as legit

[laconicsax]

56. ...and you wonder why people think that you're contradicting yourself.

You say that her firing was legit. Later, you agree that it probably wasn't. Then you assert that you've been saying the same thing all along.

Either your cognitive dissonance is playing itself out before our very eyes, or you are exceptionally inept at using the written word to convey your meaning. Since I suspect that it's the the latter, you may want to consider going back to school and taking some writing courses.

[DrDan]

58. HAHAHAHAHHAAH - an educational recommendation from you

juicy

[laconicsax]

60. Merely a suggestion that you're not terribly good at writing and you may want to better yourself. nt

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goblinmonger]

35. Unless they know that other people had violated the "values"

and weren't fired. Drinking to excess would be against those Christian values, too. So if they know someone did that and did fire them, then they really have pretty shaky ground on firing her.

They are douchebags. Just because this one is visible, they want to do something about it.

[laconicsax]

40. What the hell are you talking about?

Unless the contract she signed clearly stated what the standards are, and they included a prohibition on premarital sex, she violated no agreement.

Nice of you to be so supportive of the authoritarian "employees as slaves" idea though. Big tent indeed!

As to my "word," if don't agree to something, I don't feel compelled to adhere to it. That's why I don't keep Kosher and feel free to share artwork such as this sketch of the prophet Muhammad:

O
--+--
|
_/\_

"Uphold" is a vague word in context of the dispute. Does it mean follow both in and out of the classroom? Does it simply mean advocate in the classroom? Unless you can prove that she specifically agreed to abstain from premarital sex in her private life, you have no valid argument and are simply embarking on an authoritarian blame-the-victim toss-off.

[DrDan]

42. sounds like you are pretty well describing what happened

thanks.

as to what I support - I would appreciate you not making irrational jumps.

and I do hold your "word" as suspect based on your comments.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrDan]

45. no contradiction in my message or my posts

sorry you get confused in reading them . . . but not surprised.

and as for your "word" - you made perfectly clear that it is lacking.

[laconicsax]

51. Except for the part where you go between saying that her dismissal was proper...

and agreeing that she has a case for wrongful termination.

You can't have it both ways. Either the school was justified for firing her or they weren't.

[DrDan]

52. I never said she had a case for wrongful termination

those were a list of "if's" -

you can include among them -

"if there was an imposter signing that statement"
"if she had a gun held to her head"
"if her signature was forged"

looks to me like the firing was legit. She signed that statement. She was apparently told of the standards.

[laconicsax]

57. You just happened to agree with posters saying that she likely did. n/t

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laconicsax]

61. I'm not the one who contradicts themselves while making personal attacks.

[DrDan]

47. hmmmm

you mention your friends, family and those you work with know your word is "good". You fail to mention your employer.

Interesting.

We already know how you feel about employee's signatures on employer docs - commitments can be kept at the discretion of the employee. Just wondering if a similar situation exists in your past.

[laconicsax]

49. Did it ever occur to you that I might work with my employer? n/t

[DrDan]

53. wouldn't that be work "for" your employer

that is pretty much the usual case . . . .

well - perhaps the employer is in your family. Why don't you try that line.

[laconicsax]

55. And no employer anywhere works with their employees, right?

It must be frustrating going through life, finding that it's full of nuance. I'm curious, are you unable to understand nuance or are you unwilling to tolerate it? Your posts on this thread indicate that it's likely on or the other. A third possibility is that you are absolutely incompetent at expressing yourself in writing. That would certainly explain your propensity to contradict yourself and maintain that your position is unchanged.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zipplewrath]

5. I'd a told the on the wedding night.

I woulda told them I got pregnant on the wedding night, but because of a family history of early first births, the doctors were expecting it 3 weeks early.

Alternately I woulda told them it was a virgin conception. Let 'em struggle with THAT one.

[skepticscott]

18. That's exactly what she should have done

and since her medical records would have been off-limits, there's not much they could have done about it.

[RC]

7. And if this had been a male administrator?

I wonder if the administrator had to use a calculator to figure out she was having more fun than they were.

[Angry Dragon]

8. I want to be in that court room when they put the Lord on the stand

and listen to his testimony

[Blue Owl]

10. The very same Lord that guided Haggard, Rekers, Swaggart, et. al.

I'm sure that will solve all of Jaretta Hamilton's problems.

:eyes:

[HockeyMom]

14. NY Catholic HS

several years ago tried to fire 2 teachers. One for getting a divorce and remarrying and the other for getting a vasectomy. The students walked over the firing. The parents refused to pay TUITION until the teachers were rehired. As one parent said in local paper interview, "If they canned all the students because their parents were doing what these teachers did, they would have no STUDENTS at this school." It got a lot of very bad PUBLICITY from the local media. The school dropped their "morals" clause because of this.

Students and parents need to get involved in these issues.

[frebrd]

15. This country is slowly sinking......

into the nineteenth century.

Well, maybe not so slowly.

:banghead:

[tanyev]

19. And how many of them adore a certain former vice-presidential candidate

who did exactly the same thing? And then, of course, the whole Bristol/Levi fiasco.

[laconicsax]

21. If we're all sinners, why do they care if someone sins?

Really, if the whole point of Jesus was so that we can be forgiven for our inherited sins and we're expected to be unable to lead a sinless existence, it shouldn't be a big deal if someone sins, especially since all they need to do is ask the dictator's son for forgiveness.

It's like telling a student that they're not expected to get 100% on a final exam, and then failing them because they got a question wrong.

There's no way the school actually has a policy that covers premarital sex because unless an employee gets pregnant, there's no way for them to ever know, meaning it isn't enforceable. Of course, when you're dealing with people who believe paradise is a totalitarian dictatorship beyond Kim Jong Il's wildest dreams, you get shit like this.

[Dorian Gray]

27. Students and parents were told why she was fired?

Wow. The school sucks.

[nichomachus]

32. In my hometown

City of 50,000 -- back in the 50s and 60s -- public school teachers were not allowed to be pregnant at all, married or unmarried. If you got pregnant, you were out. Of course, this was also the city, where the superintendent of schools -- an old spinster with her grey hair in a tight bun -- spent a whole week during the summer, taking home the new high school biology books and using a razor blade to cut out the chapters on the human reproductive system.

[montanto]

33. That's easy: "With child by the Holy Spirit."

The president is there and stands the test of time. How could they argue against it?

[Tesha]

39. They could subpoena this guy -- he can explain it all, very authoritatively.

[raccoon]

64. Is she going to preach to her students that they should "save themselves" for marriage? nt