Skip to comments.Rockwall teacher fired for out-of-wedlock pregnancy
Posted on 04/11/2012 9:44:41 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
ROCKWALL Cathy Samford, a volleyball coach and science teacher, was fired from Heritage Christian Academy for getting pregnant and not being married, the school acknowledged.
"I looked it up and thought, 'They can't do this,'" said Samford, 29.
For almost three years, she coached volleyball at the private school. Samford was named "Coach of the Year" and recently began teaching science.
But when she got pregnant last fall, the school fired her because she was not married.
"We all have different views and interpretations," Samford said. "It's not necessarily the Christian thing to do to throw somebody aside because of those."
"You can't discriminate against someone who's pregnant or has a pregnancy-related medical condition," said Colin Walsh, her attorney. "That is both state and federal law."
But Heritage Christian said this case is not so simple.
"I understand some people that would say 'It's a heartless thing to do,'" said the school's headmaster, Dr. Ron Taylor. "It wasn't easy to do."
Taylor acknowledged that Samford could not get fired for an out-of-wedlock pregnancy in a public school. But HCA is a private, religious campus, and Taylor said the school considers teachers to be ministers, since they're allowed to share their beliefs in the classroom.
"The Supreme Court, as a matter of fact in the last month, has ruled 9-to-0 that a Christian school does have that right, because this is a ministry, so we have the right to have standards of conduct," Taylor added.
Taylor said Samford violated the morals clause in her contract and was not a "Christian role model" to her students.
"How's it going to look to a little fourth grade girl that sees she's pregnant and she's not married?" Taylor asked.
Mediation did not result in a resolution between the two parties. The school said it also refused to settle the case.
Taylor said HCA was contacted by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding the firing.
Samford and Walsh said they're now considering legal action. The fired teacher and expectant mother said she did nothing wrong, and faces financial problems now, including giving birth without insurance.
So the hypocrites have no problem hiring/employing a divorced woman? And they have no problem hiring/employing an unwed mother (divorced with kids)? The school loses all credibility there.
Their explanation, as presented in that article, sure does seem shaky to me.
In any event she seems to have a strong legal case if the information presented is accurate. (the vagueness of the term “Christian Role Model” in the contract)
Iran has not perfected biblical morality. It's a lie. There is little justification for your reductio.
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Romans 6:1-2)
"What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servant to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness." (Romans 6:15-16)
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23)
Those of us who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ have the new man, the quickened spirit within a sinful body of death. We should walk in the spirit, not feed the flesh. We do sin, but whom God loves he chastises. We should learn from his correction. I do not know if this woman is a Christian. Getting fired may be such a chastisement. (But from the article she seems unrepentent.)
“Im not saying this was an easy situation for the school to handle. I just think I would have handled it differently.”
I agree it is more complex than saying “throw out the sinner!” A problem is the Gospel is not clearly taught in our churches. The liberal churches teach antinomianism (no law) but the conservative churches maybe teach the Gospel until you are “saved” but from that point it is about following Jesus as your example, keeping up appearances, legalism without much forgiveness and looking to make “examples” of sinners worse than you. At best some churches teach a sort of social moralism but the Gospel gets left out.
Have you not read the Holy Scriptures? Our Lord Jesus never approved of sin? Yes, he did forgive broken hearted repentant sinners!
Her statements make it clear that she attempts to justify her sins!
Jesus taught: “Ye shall die in your sins.”
“He[God]made Him[Jesus] to be sin for us, who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)
You mean a Catholic school? Not MY son........
Samford, who has two children from a previous marriage, maintains that she did not violate her contract in any way and that the contracts clauses about being a Christian role model are vague.
No, I can’t watch videos. But if she has different “standards,” then her standards are not good enough for a christian school. I am glad she is not having an abortion.
If her fiance is the baby’s father then they should be married immediately. I think it would help her suit.
Thanks for pointing this out.
You obviously know nothing about your Bible. This woman's example of becoming pregnant out of wedlock, if not dealt with appropriately by the school administration, could lead young girls into believing that such behavior is acceptable for a Christian, causing them to sin. Do you want to know what Jesus said about those who would lead children into sin?
"But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
DYING LAUGHING over here!
Ah, post 97 claims she is engaged. Good for the happy couple. I guess shotgun weddings are out of fashion these days.
It is only hypocritical if the church teaches that such things are sin. Aside from the Catholic Church, I don't know of many that place being divorced on the same level as sex outside of wedlock...
Actually, probably not. In a case like this, it is the church (employer) who gets to define the term, not the employee. As long as the school can show that the Bible teaches against such behavior (which it does), then they can support the firing.
It’s not about her, it’s about what’s best for the students...period!
The Bible also teaches against divorce yet they hired her anyway. From a legal standpoint even terms based on Bible teachings must be spelled out to avoid any confusion.
She is likely to prevail.
Right, because its up to men and organizations to determine which sins are worse than others, and what the scale is in general. This school had no problem hiring a divorced, single mother. They had no problem with her being a role model knowing that situation. But when she got pregnant, then there was a problem. It shows them to be hypocrites.
Maybe, but perhaps having a fiance in the wings was good enough for them to overlook the previous divorce, which was before her employment here, and events that normally would not be known to children/students and thus, affect them. But then she pulled another boner, one that is too difficult to hide.
This school had no problem hiring a divorced, single mother. They had no problem with her being a role model knowing that situation. But when she got pregnant, then there was a problem. It shows them to be hypocrites.
Maybe they were cutting her a break and following the Bible and showing her mercy when they hired her. Only to regret it when she later ended up preggers.
She has different standards? Exactly the reason they don’t want you as a teacher, lady!!
Let’s say there is a non-Catholic guy who teaches at a Catholic school. He tells his classes he thinks the church’s stand on abortion is wrong. Good plan, bad plan?
Let’s say you work for a company that requires its employees that meet the public to wear a suit. One guy doesn’t agree and decides to ignore this rule. Good plan, bad plan?
Not necessarily. A hypocrite is one who acts in a manner in opposition to his/her own stated beliefs/principles. Since we don't know what the school teaches concerning divorce, it would be incorrect to label them as hypocrites over that issue. Also, even the Jesus did not label divorce as a sin - it was divorce and remarriage that was the sin, because it caused the participants to be engaged in adultery.
And what if the divorce occurred before the participant became a Christian? What if it occurred for reasons of abuse, adultery or abandonment? Would they still be hypocrites for hiring her?
“If she doesnt know that sex causes pregnancy, she is too stupid to be a teacher”
>>>No BC is 100% sure even when used correctly.<<<
Abstinence, which is a biblical requirement for all single Christian men and women, is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy.
Her morals code violation was for fornication, the pregnancy was simply the evidence of it.
Her word means nothing — her contract means nothing — only what she wants to do. Me and I are the only ones who count for her; God’s Word certainly means nothing.
So a woman in a abusive marriage who gets the shiiite beat out of her every weekend get's divorced and then cannot remarry as it's a sin and is forced to remain single and alone the rest of her life??
I hope thats not the case, because that would mean that they are only concerned about the perception of how sin looks, but not the sin itself.
A) In a Christian context, fornication/immorality IS "doing something wrong.
B)Where's the baby-daddy, and why isn't he kicking in financially; and/or being sued for paternity?
C)Based on all the evidence presented, it sounds like she's too stupid & careless to be teaching science, or much of anything else, in any case.
Marriage; then sex; then children: any other order is wrong.
This is exactly the problem the school has. Now people have to make up background stories or say “I never publicly was opposed to divorce” in order to justify it.
And you didnt address the one sin is worse than another point that you made earlier.
Did you read the other linked article in the comments? She is marrying the father.
Perhaps you should read Luke 7:36 and John 7:53-8:11.
What would Jesus do?
“Wouldnt it have been simpler for her to just get married.”
She probably doesn’t know who the father is.
No, I didn’t.
I’ll scratch”B”, but still stand by “A” and “C”.
I’ll also continue to stand by, “Marriage; then sex; then children: any other order is wrong.”
She still needed to lose her job. “Forgiveness” does NOT mean “no consequences”.
They work together. True leaders lead by example, which are outward expressions of inward beliefs. They are intricately tied. IMHO, perception is very important as a leader, especially to the young who look to such a leader for guidance. This also includes what comes from the mouth, which completes the understanding of the perception and sin or absence thereof.
She does, and she is marrying him.
That was never my contention. My problem is they hired a divorced woman and then fired her for getting pregnant because sex before marriage goes against their teachings, but divorce does not appear to.
I agree that perception is important. But because the school decided to act the way they did, we now know that the school was ok with hiring a divorced woman, but fired her for getting pregnant before getting re-married. And now the school will have to deal with the perception of hypocrisy because of it. By their actions, they have brought more scrutiny upon themselves.
BTW, I like your tagline.
There are Biblical reasons for divorce; there aren’t for fornication.
Divorce can be forced upon one, against their will, by the other party. What sin attaches to one for the sins of another?
Divorce, regardless of responsibility or reason, is forgivable upon repentance; and nothing ongoing attaches thereto, IF the divorced party then remains in their estate, maintaining chastity...she didn’t.
Are either of us privy to the details of her divorce? If not, then best not to judge on that basis.
OTOH, the fornication and pregnancy are undeniably upon her; and they are in contravention of her contract’s morals clause.
And what if she got pregnant by one of her students, or one of the students Fathers, or what if ad nauseaum.....
You don't know the circumstances either. The school is simply following the contract they have with her. If you make an exception in this case then you start on a slippery slope. They have an established policy. The time to fight it would have been before she got pregnant.
No it is sending the very clear message that actions have consequences. Several years ago a new teacher at an inner city school wanted to have a baby shower for one of the girls that was pregnant. Several of the more senior teachers told him that he was not to do that under any circumstance, because what ever you reward you increase. The last thing we need is more young ladies thinking they can get presents for getting pregnant out of wedlock.
Can't counter the argument so throw out a red herring. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
I am pretty sure that abstinence is
Actually, she was fired for openly flaunting that she broke the commandment against extramarital sex.
So who made her pregant? And why didn’t she marry?
So now, we have to justify the school’s decision by hoping that the divorce was the husband’s fault. Face it, the school made a move based on PR and it is coming back on them.
As you obviously don’t know; I was not the one who brought up that “red herring” you spoke about (Catholics).
So I countered his weak point with a strong one. I hope you understand beter now.
True, but it is plausable that the school saw to be forgiving on the divorced facet, but when she screwed up again - enough is enough. And as I said before, being divorced is not as outwardly noticeable as walking around pregnant.
The school could no longer tolerate her behavior. Forgiveness does not mean the school has to allow her to teach there.
Your "point" had nothing to do with the situation. It was a weak/lame/ feeble attempt to divert the discussion by throwing stones at the Catholic Church. I do understand perfectly, not just beter(sic)
Simple question coming....
WHO brought up the Catholic church in the first place?
Hard question now: And why was it (Catholic church) brought up? This incident happened at a Christian school. So was was the point of infusing Catholics into this debate?
I'll tell you why. To stir the pot. To agitate. The make some lame point. That is despicable.
And if you bring that sort of stuff in here, I will respond.
Your "point" had nothing to do with the situation.
See? I prove my point. You should tell Psalm that his point - that he brought up first - had nothing to do with the situation.