Skip to comments.Ohio Teacher Says She Was Fired Over Pregnancy, Files Suit Against Catholic Archdiocese
Posted on 12/31/2012 10:32:41 AM PST by marshmallow
DAYTON, Ohio An unmarried Catholic school teacher who said she was fired after telling her principal that she was pregnant is suing the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati.
It's the second lawsuit that's been filed in the last two years against archdiocese over the firing of a pregnant teacher.
Kathleen Quinlan, who taught first grade at Ascension Catholic School in Kettering in suburban Dayton, said she was told to resign or she would be fired, on the same day she told the school's principal in December 2011 that she was expecting. She said she had offered to take a behind-the-scenes job until she gave birth.
Quinlan, of Dayton, who later had twin girls, said in her lawsuit that she was given three days to clear out her classroom.
A termination letter said she was fired for violating a section of her employment contract that requires employees to "comply with and act consistently in accordance with the stated philosophy and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church," according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court .
Her attorney said that, "as a non-ministerial employee, (she) was not subject to a 'morality clause.'"
(Excerpt) Read more at therepublic.com ...
She knew the rules she was agreeing to when accepting employment, and she broke them.
When I was in HS in the 60s, even a married woman couldn’t teach if she was pregnant.
Misses the point that the problem was not being pregnant but the act that got her pregnant. Any bets that married pregnant teachers exist in the Catholic system?
I have a cica 1830 church book...says folks were found dancing....and kicked out of the church...no questions asked.....OUT...
I have a circa 1830 church book...says folks were found dancing....and kicked out of the church...no questions asked.....OUT...
It wasn’t because she was pregnant, but because she wasn’t married and was pregnant. Hence the “morality clause.” That said, I think they should have put her on leave immediately and given her time either to rectify the situation by getting married, or to find another job.
My kids attended 12 yrs. of Catholic school. If any of their teachers had been pregnant outside of marriage, they would have been attending another school.
Hor$eShit!, Typical ambulance chaser who doesn't know $hit about the law. She signed the contract with a morality clause. She was over the age of 18 and had a college degree and a state license. She should have enough mental capability to read a standard contract.
Regardless, she is an ‘AT WILL” employee. The School has every right to terminate a person who goes against the moral standards of an institution. It is no different that being involved in any other violation of the rules.
Unclear On the Concept award for Miss Quinlan. Probably it's best if she chooses a profession other than teaching, lest the students end up equally incapable of using reason.
She broke the rules she agreed to when she took the job.
I’m a little hesitant about this, because she could have chosen to go off and have a secret abortion, pretending that she had the flu for a week or something. At least she chose to bring the twins to life, instead of killing them to keep her job.
But it’s their decision.
I don’t think giving her time to get hitched is a solution, as the problem isn’t being pregnant and not married, the problem is having engaged in consensual marital activity while not being married. Marrying after the fact doesn’t change the status of the activity—and often is only a way to further mess up one’s life.
Does this mean that a married teacher that uses birth control can be fired also?
regarding the right to fire the teacher, legally it depends on what was in the contract. Was moral behavior defined more precisely?
I am also guessing there may be more info that we are not privy to. I would hope that a young woman who made a mistake ( we all do) and decided to give birth and change her life would receive compassion and understanding. However if said young woman is “shacking up” and has no desire or intent on changing her behavior than she really has no place teaching in the catholic schools.
At least she isn’t a nun.
Does this mean that a married teacher that uses birth control can be fired also?
If she is using it such a way that it becomes public knowledge she should be fired.
One can see that kind of reasoning leading to a sort of moral blackmail: "Nobody is allowed to disapprove of or exact consequences for any sexual behavior ... because at least I didn't have an abortion." That's almost the default setting already for even the most irresponsible actions. "Don't judge me - I didn't have an abortion."
Boy did that keep us puberty ravaged boys interested in her subject matter.
In this area Catholic school teachers are represented by a union. Will be interesting to see if that is the case here. Would be ironic if the Church’s embrace of organized labor and “social justice” came back to bite them in the arse.
In any event it will provide rich fodder for critics and the media to beat-up on the Church for being hypocritical on its Pro-Life stance.
Life is full of people whose parents got married after the fact. Neither the child nor the parent should be punished for this. Nothing reverses time, and all one can do is correct the error. I read that a huge percentage - in fact, the majority - of girls in 17th century New England were pregnant when they got married, so the shotgun wedding was with us even before the shotgun itself.
Once upon a time, even children were punished for being illegitimate: there were certain professions they couldn’t go into, or at least not without a lot of paperwork and special treatment. This was clearly wrong and excessive, and it did nothing about e central fact. But there’s nothing that can change that, so the best thing is for the parents to repent, get married if possible, or otherwise try to work out their situation as best they can (if one of them is already married, for example). Fear of having their lives ruined and their children rejected was what used to determine women to have abortions once upon a time, and we don’t need to go back to that.
However, the young children this woman teaches don’t need to know that or worry about it. I agree that she should have been out of the classroom that day before the kids started to notice or ask questions, but there should have been more kindness shown her in offering to help her resolve her situation.
It mentions that she already has twins. Whose are they, I wonder. She may be somebody whose life is a mess, and perhaps kind treatment would give her a chance to get it together, since there are now four lives involved.
I had a great-aunt who taught school after her husband died (not sure exactly when but maybe the 1920s or 1930s--she was born in 1881), but being a widow was different. Maybe the rule was there because of the belief that a married woman ought to be home keeping house.
I agree that it is quite common—I know of many cases both among my family and my ancestors. At the same time, it is worth asking in a given situation whether marriage will correct or compound the problem. Sometimes the answer is clear one way, sometimes it is clear the other, and sometimes it is unclear. Allowing a person to retain the job if they marry discourages the asking of this important question, and may encourage them to act against what is best.
In fact, all other things being equal, children are at a disadvantage when illegitimate, but a shotgun marriage is not always the answer. Adoption is sometimes a very good option.
The twins were born from the pregnancy that cost her her job. If she had applied for the job while single and had told them that she had a couple of kids at home, I doubt that she would have been hired.
Make no mistake, the use of birth control is a MORTAL sin in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church. It is often an abortifacient preventing a fertilized egg from implanting.
The Church is very open and willing to discuss all these matters. They have both moral and scientific facts on their side. Unlike the greater society they are unable to be swayed by moral relativism.
When In was in elementary school my first grade teacher got MARRIED and had to retire. And i went to a PUBLIC school
Times have changed a lot
” When I was in HS in the 60s, even a married woman couldnt teach if she was pregnant.”
I once worked in a law office with an older woman. Her husband couldn’t work because of a chronic illness; so she had to be the sole breadwinner for herself, husband and their two small children. But at that time, even a married woman without children, had difficulty finding a full time job. During interviews, it was customary to ask whether the applicant intended to start a family or add to her family anytime soon. The reasoning was that the employer was investing a lot of money into the employee. The employer did not want to waste time and money on a new employee if she was going to get pregnant and possibly quit the workforce.
This case goes to the heart of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Can a Church or any employer with a deep moral compass be compelled to act against their own moral teachings and feelings in order to be involved in ANY type of Secular activity? If they can be compelled in such a manner, is there a First Amendment at all?
I don’t think it’s true that a majority of brides were pregnant in 17th c. New England. The Puritans kept good records, and in researching my grandfather’s line (almost all Great Migration, 1630s through 1650s) I didn’t find any early first births, and only one obvious case of illegitimacy - four babies born to the Widow Trask.
I agree. If they want the sinless to be teachers, there will be a scarcity of application.
Perhaps her first conversation should have been with the archbishop in the confessional. She should have waited and talked to the principal after the penance was completed.
Is she openly talking about it?
I was in a Catholic HS in Kansas
If the slut was too ignorant to read her contract why was she teaching anyways?
Kim Kardashian just announced the wonderful news that she’s reproducing with Kanye West. Does this mean she can’t get the job?
In fact, it's a hair's breath from a liberal's response who wants to play devil's advocate with a conservative.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
(& I'm as pro-life as they come)
I wonder if she got pregnant using artificial insemination if she would be fired? IVF? What if she had aborted the twins?
However, no employer, not ever the Church, is going to keep their employees under surveillance to find out what they are doing in the privacy of their own home.
That does happen but it's not typical. Most women in their mid-50s have already gone through menopause.
If any of those things became public, and thus a "manifest" violation, yes, acording to the contract she signed, she could have --- and in my view, should have --- been fired..
Although one might ask: Is education a secular activity.? I mean the state did not create any part of a single human being.
Indeed you should.
The other woman was fired for having a child via invitro fertilization.
You mean if it doesn’t work and she gets pregnant?
Happy New Year
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.