Fornication? My favourite sin! :)

[Gob]

The couple sat close together with her right hand clasped in his left hand and her left arm cradling the 8-month-old daughter whose conception cost the woman her job.

The couple’s sin, according to her former employer, Southland Christian School in St. Cloud, Fla., is fornication — having sex before they got married.

Jarretta Hamilton and her husband of 16 months, Samuel Treftz, told TODAY’s Ann Curry Monday that the termination violated federal anti-discrimination laws. In addition, they allege in a pending lawsuit, the school’s principal, Jon Ennis, invaded Hamilton’s privacy by telling other teachers and the parents of her students the exact reason she was fired.

“When they let me go, they told the entire staff in a staff meeting that I had been fired and the reason why they let me go. And then they called all of my parents to my fourth-grade students and told them as well,” Hamilton said.

Ennis declined to appear on TODAY, citing a lawsuit filed by Hamilton against the school. But in a prerecorded report filed by NBC News’ Mike Taibbi, Ennis was asked if he stood by the firing. “Yes, absolutely,” he replied.

Hamilton said her problems are all the result of her being honest. A widow with five children from her first marriage, she had gotten work as a teacher at Southland Christian School in January 2008. Meanwhile, she also met Treftz, and they planned a Feb. 20, 2009, wedding.

Three weeks before the wedding, she conceived her daughter, Sarah.

In April 2009, Hamilton and Treftz went together to Ennis and told him she would be taking maternity leave in the fall. She says Ennis first complained that it was difficult for the school to cover women on maternity leave.

“I was only requesting a standard six weeks maternity leave, and as the conversation progressed, he said, ‘I’m just trying to do the math here. When did you get married?’ ” Hamilton told Curry.

“I said Feb. 20,” she continued. “He said, ‘Well, did you conceive prior to marriage?’ I answered and I told him, ‘Yes.’ ”

Hamilton said she answered partly because she was so surprised by the very personal question.

“I was absolutely shocked. It came out of nowhere. I was honest about it. I didn’t know it would cost me my job,” she said.

A week later, she was notified that she was terminated. In a letter sent to her attorney, Edward Gay, last July, the school’s administrator, Julie Ennis, wrote:

“Jarretta was asked not to return because of a moral issue that was disregarded, namely fornication, sex outside of marriage. The employment application, which she filled out, clearly states that as a leader before our students we require all teachers to maintain and communicate the values and purpose of our school.”

That’s a long way from saying teachers are prohibited from having premarital sex, the couple argue.

“If there was a contract in place that had a specific morality clause, I think that would make a difference,” Treftz said.

Hamilton agreed, adding, “At least people would know what they’re getting into. I didn’t know that they were going to judge so harshly; that this was the way they felt about premarital sex. I wasn’t clear what their stance was on certain issues.”

Gay, who joined the couple for the TODAY interview, said that pastors and clergy have the right to make moral decisions regarding church personnel, but this case is different because Hamilton was a teacher.

“The courts have consistently ruled that a private school is just like any other employer. As long as there’s more than 50 employees, they are governed by the law regarding discrimination,” Gay said. “The teachers are serving a secular purpose, and therefore they are governed by federal laws of discrimination.”

In the letter explaining the termination to Gay, Julie Ennis ended by asking Hamilton to give up the lawsuit.

“We request that Jarretta withdraw her complaint and consider the testimony of the Lord,” the letter concludes.

Read more: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/37683770#ixzz0qtgNmc3b

[The Hen]

That has got a big shade of WRONG about it.

Imagine having to admit you were fired from your last job because you were a fucker.

[Miles]

After they win the law sui perhaps they would consider hiring a private investegator to look into that Ennis guys past and see just how virtous he is.....

You know the old tit for tat thing, tit for tat, you kill my dog, I'll kill your cat.

[The Hen]

Ennis? Well you just KNOW he isn't virtuous. His name is almost Penis, except for the letters that aren't.

[Big RR]

“We request that Jarretta withdraw her complaint and consider the testimony of the Lord,”

somehow i doubt that the lord will give any testimony in this case; who would the lord swear to tell the truth by?

[Gob]

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...."

Seriusly though, would you want to work in/let your kid go to a school where this sort of idiocy is considered the norm?

[Sue U]

The firing may be stupid and ridiculous, but tell me exactly what "federal anti-discrimination law" was violated? She was not fired on account of race, sex, religion, age, etc. I suppose an argument cold be made that she was fired on account of pregnancy, and "fornication" is simply a pretext, but that's not what anyone seems to be claiming here.

The simple fact is that absent some specific contract provision, at-will employees can be fired for good reason, bad reason, unbelievably dumb reason or no reason at all, so long as it is not a prohibited reason. While I am somewhat sympathetic to this woman's plight (she had to go teach in a loony-fringe Christian school?), I don't see much of an employment case here at all. As a lawyer, unless I needed some big publicity on the cheap, I wouldn't take this case -- there's simply not a very good chance of winning.

[Big RR]

I suppose an argument cold be made that she was fired on account of pregnancy, and "fornication" is simply a pretext, but that's not what anyone seems to be claiming here.

I don't know Sue

She says Ennis first complained that it was difficult for the school to cover women on maternity leave.

The fornication angle may be sued to get publicity, but I'd bet the lawsuit centers on this very thing, she was fired to deny her benefits she is entitled to.

Also, I would think some sort of religious discrimination case could be made(she was being fired because here beliefs did not conform to the religion the school said everyone must recognize) if her lawyer is right about the state of the law, but it would be hard.

[Sue U]

I suppose an argument cold be made that she was fired on account of pregnancy, and "fornication" is simply a pretext, but that's not what anyone seems to be claiming here.

I don't know Sue

She says Ennis first complained that it was difficult for the school to cover women on maternity leave.

The fornication angle may be sued to get publicity, but I'd bet the lawsuit centers on this very thing, she was fired to deny her benefits she is entitled to.

Yeah, that's really the only angle I can see, but it's a thin reed here because at the very best it makes this a mixed-motive case. Accordingly, the question would be whether fornication standing alone would have been sufficient for the employer to terminate her, which given the facts seems like it would be. Unless she can show that other fornicators have been kept on in employment, despite the fact that the employer knew or reasonably should have known about the fornication, she loses this case.

Also, I would think some sort of religious discrimination case could be made(she was being fired because here beliefs did not conform to the religion the school said everyone must recognize) if her lawyer is right about the state of the law, but it would be hard.

Problem is, there is an exception for religious institutions that allows them to make conformity with the sect's beliefs and practices a legitimate condition of employment. I think the school is likely to win on this ground as well because of the courts' traditional reluctance to undertake examination of church doctrine.

[Big RR]

Problem is, there is an exception for religious institutions that allows them to make conformity with the sect's beliefs and practices a legitimate condition of employment. I think the school is likely to win on this ground as well because of the courts' traditional reluctance to undertake examination of church doctrine.

sue, I thought so as well, but her attorney appears to draw a distinction between a church and a school, stating :

Gay, who joined the couple for the TODAY interview, said that pastors and clergy have the right to make moral decisions regarding church personnel, but this case is different because Hamilton was a teacher.

“The courts have consistently ruled that a private school is just like any other employer. As long as there’s more than 50 employees, they are governed by the law regarding discrimination,” Gay said. “The teachers are serving a secular purpose, and therefore they are governed by federal laws of discrimination.”

I didn't think this was the case when the private school was a religious one, but I'd be interested to see how this plays out.

Personally, I think she should sue Ennis for sexual harassment in asking her about her sexual activity (when the child was conceived).

[Rick]

I guess the 1st time I tried to post this I hit the wrong button.

Fire all those that LIED, they called in sick but really weren't...

[Gob]

Heh... Fire all of those who marked school papers on a Sunday...