Lawyer here. My belief is that in the US, this particular issue would be extra difficult to change unless you are also going to amend the constitution. (I say this as someone who is not a...
Lawyer here. My belief is that in the US, this particular issue would be extra difficult to change unless you are also going to amend the constitution. (I say this as someone who is not a specialist in constitutional law and I am open to being corrected by someone with more specific knowledge).
As they say, con law is what you and four friends on scotus say it is. And i bet this court would probably find a way to uphold this position, but I believe maternity is a protected class as far...
As they say, con law is what you and four friends on scotus say it is.
And i bet this court would probably find a way to uphold this position, but I believe maternity is a protected class as far as employment goes.
Ok, so I am willing to be corrected, but my understanding is that teachers in religious schools are allowed to be hired and fired based on whether they conform to standard teachings of that...
Ok, so I am willing to be corrected, but my understanding is that teachers in religious schools are allowed to be hired and fired based on whether they conform to standard teachings of that religion, including codes for sexual behavior. Are you saying that her job should be protected by the law for the duration of her pregnancy? Would the result be any different if the pregnant employee was an episcopal priest who got pregnant through adultery? It''s a question of the boundary of freedom of religion to create separate spaces to practice their beliefs. A teacher in a religious school is a representative of that religion as far as I know.
I’m not a constitutional lawyer either, but I would definitely take the case, even though it would be unlikely to ultimately prevail on this court. The same general principle that applies to the...
I’m not a constitutional lawyer either, but I would definitely take the case, even though it would be unlikely to ultimately prevail on this court.
The same general principle that applies to the continued prohibition of First Nations use of peyote should apply here. You are free to to believe and profess whatever you like, however, socially harmful practices do not automatically warrant protection. I would also argue that even if the school could legally proscribe the behavior, firing on the grounds of infraction would creat a constitutional inconsistency with other professed beliefs which would should be a constitutional infeingement.
That, and again, I’m pretty sure there’s caselaw against firing pregnant women and parents simply for their status as such.
I did a little digging, but didn't touch Lexis or Westlaw. There is an exception for religious organizations to title 7 antidiscrimination law, but it is limited and the boundaries are fuzzy....
I did a little digging, but didn't touch Lexis or Westlaw. There is an exception for religious organizations to title 7 antidiscrimination law, but it is limited and the boundaries are fuzzy. However the Supreme Court ruled that the religious exemption applies not just to pastors, priests and ministers but also to teachers in religious schools. 140 S. Ct. 2049 (2020)
“While we recognize that the United States Supreme Court’s prior decisions provide broad latitude to religious employers regarding hiring and firing, we believe the NJ Supreme Court could have, and should have, held that a second grade art teacher was entitled to the protections of the Law Against Discrimination,” Shalom said in a statement to CNN. (So, the ACLU was seeking to clarify state law but national law was already opposed to their position)
Wouldn't the argument be that they aren't firing because of maternity, but rather because she had sex while unmarried and the pregnancy simply just served as proof of the actions? Of course there...
but I believe maternity is a protected class as far as employment goes.
Wouldn't the argument be that they aren't firing because of maternity, but rather because she had sex while unmarried and the pregnancy simply just served as proof of the actions? Of course there would probably be the unstated part of their motivation being that she's a woman that had sex while unmarried, unless they were forced to argue against evidence that they knew about unmarried men having sex and doing nothing, in which case they may have to state this part of their motivation out loud. In the case that that her being a woman having sex outside of marriage became the point of contention, obviously with sex being a protected class, along with maternity, sexual orientation etc., not sure how that would work if it's not because she's a woman but also because she's a woman that had sex outside of marriage.
I guess there was already some precedent for this but it just seems wrong to me.
It's a reason not to work for religious schools.
It's a reason to reform the courts.
Lawyer here. My belief is that in the US, this particular issue would be extra difficult to change unless you are also going to amend the constitution. (I say this as someone who is not a specialist in constitutional law and I am open to being corrected by someone with more specific knowledge).
As they say, con law is what you and four friends on scotus say it is.
And i bet this court would probably find a way to uphold this position, but I believe maternity is a protected class as far as employment goes.
Ok, so I am willing to be corrected, but my understanding is that teachers in religious schools are allowed to be hired and fired based on whether they conform to standard teachings of that religion, including codes for sexual behavior. Are you saying that her job should be protected by the law for the duration of her pregnancy? Would the result be any different if the pregnant employee was an episcopal priest who got pregnant through adultery? It''s a question of the boundary of freedom of religion to create separate spaces to practice their beliefs. A teacher in a religious school is a representative of that religion as far as I know.
What are your thoughts?
I’m not a constitutional lawyer either, but I would definitely take the case, even though it would be unlikely to ultimately prevail on this court.
The same general principle that applies to the continued prohibition of First Nations use of peyote should apply here. You are free to to believe and profess whatever you like, however, socially harmful practices do not automatically warrant protection. I would also argue that even if the school could legally proscribe the behavior, firing on the grounds of infraction would creat a constitutional inconsistency with other professed beliefs which would should be a constitutional infeingement.
That, and again, I’m pretty sure there’s caselaw against firing pregnant women and parents simply for their status as such.
I did a little digging, but didn't touch Lexis or Westlaw. There is an exception for religious organizations to title 7 antidiscrimination law, but it is limited and the boundaries are fuzzy. However the Supreme Court ruled that the religious exemption applies not just to pastors, priests and ministers but also to teachers in religious schools. 140 S. Ct. 2049 (2020)
I can't read the Ny Times article but this one from cnn quotes a representative of the ACLU. https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/15/us/new-jersey-catholic-school-premarital-sex-firing/index.html
“While we recognize that the United States Supreme Court’s prior decisions provide broad latitude to religious employers regarding hiring and firing, we believe the NJ Supreme Court could have, and should have, held that a second grade art teacher was entitled to the protections of the Law Against Discrimination,” Shalom said in a statement to CNN. (So, the ACLU was seeking to clarify state law but national law was already opposed to their position)
These cites will shed light on the recent US Supreme Court case.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/19-267
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe_School_v._Morrissey-Berru
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-267_1an2.pdf
https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-134/our-lady-of-guadalupe-school-v-morrissey-berru/
The ACLU as you know, frequently litigates to try to change or extend interpretations of the law.
Re the scope of the religious exception generally, here are some resources
This article is about standards in California, but it is still illuminating. https://www.gphlawyers.com/2019/03/application-of-employment-laws-to-religious-institutions/#:~:text=California's%20Fair%20Employment%20and%20Housing,%2C%20%C2%A7%2012926%20(d).
https://smitheylaw.com/religious-discrimination-employees-that-are-part-of-religious-organizations-may-not-be-protected/
https://www.cwlaw.com/newsletters-40
https://www.churchlawandtax.com/human-resources/employment/title-vii-and-church-employment-practices/
Wouldn't the argument be that they aren't firing because of maternity, but rather because she had sex while unmarried and the pregnancy simply just served as proof of the actions? Of course there would probably be the unstated part of their motivation being that she's a woman that had sex while unmarried, unless they were forced to argue against evidence that they knew about unmarried men having sex and doing nothing, in which case they may have to state this part of their motivation out loud. In the case that that her being a woman having sex outside of marriage became the point of contention, obviously with sex being a protected class, along with maternity, sexual orientation etc., not sure how that would work if it's not because she's a woman but also because she's a woman that had sex outside of marriage.
Yes, precisely. See my reply above for more specific detail that I found this morning, if you are interested in the state of the law.
Hey at least we don’t have massive disruption and unrest in our public school sector, right?!
It does seem wrong. Just as wrong as religious institutions being tax free and catholic schools receiving public money for books.