Christian school fires pregnant woman over premarital sex

17

In October, Teri James says her supervisor at San Diego Christian College called her to her office and got straight to the point: Was James pregnant?

James, 29, of El Cajon, Calif., was indeed pregnant – and she was also unmarried, a violation of school rules, according to the lawsuit she filed in San Diego County superior court. She says she was fired because, as the termination letter included in the suit stated: “Teri engaged in activity outside the scope of the Handbook and Community Covenant that does not build up the college’s mission.”

Speaking by phone with her lawyer, Gloria Allred, James said she felt humiliated. 

“I had to leave right after the meeting. I had to go into the office with all of my co-workers and say I’m leaving,” James said. “I never came back so I don’t know what my co-workers thought, but for me, it was humiliating. I felt like I was in trouble.” 

Also insulting, James said, was that after firing her, the school offered a job to her then-fiancé – they are now married – even though it was known that he, too, engaged in premarital sex. He did not accept the job, she said. 

Written By: Isolde Raftery
continue to source article at lifeinc.today.com

17 COMMENTS

  1. As ugly and as ridiculous as it may be, it sounds as if the school was within its rights. The employee signed a pledge saying she would refrain from extramarital sex. She didn’t, and the school exercised its option to terminate her. I see this situation as a moral problem (the school’s), not a legal problem.

    • In reply to #1 by DallasDad:

      As ugly and as ridiculous as it may be, it sounds as if the school was within its rights. The employee signed a pledge saying she would refrain from extramarital sex. She didn’t, and the school exercised its option to terminate her. I see this situation as a moral problem (the school’s), not a legal problem.

      Agreed, but the provision can’t be enforced equally well on men as on women. It seems like there is a clear gender discrimination issue.

      • In reply to #3 by FrugalSolar:

        In reply to #1 by DallasDad:

        As ugly and as ridiculous as it may be, it sounds as if the school was within its rights. The employee signed a pledge saying she would refrain from extramarital sex. She didn’t, and the school exercised its option to terminate her. I see this situation as a moral problem (the school’s), not a legal problem.

        Agreed, but the provision can’t be enforced equally well on men as on women. It seems like there is a clear gender discrimination issue.

        The fact that they offered her fiance a job after he was guilty of the same sexual slip shows they are in violation of their own pledge. Their pledge asks them to, among other things, abstain from drugs, alcohol and tobacco and “abusive anger, malice, jealousy, lust, sexually immoral behavior including premarital sex, adultery, pornography and homosexuality, evil desires and prejudice based on race, sex or socioeconomic status.”

        SO they messed up on the prejudice based on sex part. As these pledge behaviours are all grouped together, I expect the punishment for each is identical. Anyone involved in offering him a job should be fired.

    • Sorry that is just bullshit. It is a legal problem. Employers shouldn’t be allowed to dictate what the employees do in their personal life. Asking her to sign the contract breached her human rights. This sort of mindless obedience to antiquated legal process is the reason why it is tough to change laws.

      In reply to #1 by DallasDad:

      As ugly and as ridiculous as it may be, it sounds as if the school was within its rights. The employee signed a pledge saying she would refrain from extramarital sex. She didn’t, and the school exercised its option to terminate her. I see this situation as a moral problem (the school’s), not a legal problem.

    • In reply to #1 by DallasDad:

      As ugly and as ridiculous as it may be, it sounds as if the school was within its rights. The employee signed a pledge saying she would refrain from extramarital sex. She didn’t, and the school exercised its option to terminate her. I see this situation as a moral problem (the school’s), not a legal problem.

      It isn’t clear that being fired was an option exercisable under violation of the pledge.

  2. She should have had here lawyer argue that she had been visited by an angel from god and had been blessed with an immaculate conception. She would require a large settlement from the church to support the second coming of god.

  3. ” Also insulting, James said, was that after firing her, the school offered a job to her then-fiancé – they are now married – “

    Double standard much, San Diego Christian College??

    You may have gotten away with this piece of trashy religious behavior on the signed contract basis, but you decided, as many religions do, to shoot yourself in the foot by further egregiousness!

  4. It is a legal issue. One, they offered the same job to her fiancé, so there is a double standard. Second, contracts cannot override the law. If a contract contradicts the law it is void.

  5. The school should be more vigorous in the enforcement of its contract. Fire any and every employee who puts the smallest toe out of line with the most severe interpretation of Christian precepts and proscriptions, and expel every single student who fails to refrain from things like lust, jealousy, or the occasional ingestion of drugs (anybody remember caffeine?).

    Let them operate unhypocritically like this, and see how long they can last. If they manage to reach an equilibrium where they’re not actually firing or expelling someone every week, they’ll have become a repository for like-minded individuals. It’d be a win-win: they get to practice their ethics as they see fit without constant lawsuits, and the rest of the workforce is spared from having to waste time or suffer dealing with them.

  6. This is what you get with religion. Over zealous, self righteous bigots doing the work of a fictitious nonentity. Beware. The inhuman prohibitions of sharia are far worse though and there are thousands of self appointed idiot immams, muftis and clerics the world over who are working to extend their noisome verminous religion over those of us who have no need or want of religious interference in our lives.

  7. Women in England are protected by law against discrimination because of pregnancy!

    UK employment law is very specific on this:-

    Dismissal on the grounds of Pregnancy or Maternity

    A woman will automatically be regarded as unfairly dismissed if her employer dismisses her, or selects her for redundancy, because she is pregnant or has given birth to a child, or for a reason connected with her pregnancy or childbirth. http://www.roydens.co.uk/content19.htm

  8. Reminds me of when major Hollywood studios made their actors sign a “morals clause” (born from the Hayes and Breen catholic code). All phony as hell, of course it didn’t last.

    It’s not nice to fool mother nature – any person or group that thinks it can, have their heads up their collective a$$es.

      • In reply to #17 by bluebird:

        In reply to #16 by RationalConclusion:

        As long as you make it to the church on time I don’t really see the problem.

        Here in the u.s. we call ‘em ‘shotgun weddings’ .

        Yep, in the U.S. you can get a free shotgun for opening a bank account but, when it comes to pre-marital sex you are bound by BS contracts to keep your gun in your briefs. Democracy at its finest!

Leave a Reply