BuffettNews.com

Teacher Fired for Becoming Pregnant Out of Wedlock

When Jarretta Hamilton, a fourth grade teacher at a Florida Christian school, told administrators she was pregnant, she expected them to ask when she was due.

She did not, however, think her answer would get her fired.

In April 2009, Hamilton told her boss at Southland Christian School in St. Cloud, Fla., that she was pregnant and planned to take a six-week leave in October. When asked when she conceived, Hamilton answered honestly: She became pregnant just three weeks prior to her Feb. 20 wedding.

That was enough to get her fired under the school's strict morality rules, which prohibit teachers from "fornication," engaging in sex before marriage.

"Jaretta was asked not to return because of a moral issue that was disregarded, namely fornication, sex outside marriage," administrator Julie Ennis wrote in a letter to Hamilton's lawyer.

Now, Hamilton is suing the school in federal court, seeking damages for lost wages and emotional distress.

"She was incredibly upset about being fired," Hamilton's lawyer Edward Gay told ABCNews.com. "She was upset that she wasn't able to complete the term with less than two months left in the school year and upset that her fourth graders were told about this."

According to Gay, Hamilton filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but opted out of mediation and chose instead to file suit because of the commission's lengthy backlog.

According to the complaint, Hamilton is suing under federal gender discrimination laws, a state marriage discrimination law and for violations of her privacy.

"The school told the students and their parents why Hamilton had been fired. Disclosing that kind of personal information was a violation of her privacy," Gay said.

"There were never any complaints about her teaching. The school said she was an outstanding teacher," he added.

The school does not dispute the reasons for firing Hamilton, calling sex outside of marriage "an immoral action," but argues that her termination does not rise to discrimination because it employs other pregnant women.

For the rest of the story: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Media/te ... 802&page=1

Private employer, published policy

did she sign a contract that clearly outlined this??
if so.. she is in the wrong..
you sign, you agree.. you give your word.... it's on you..

At least she didn't get 4 months in prison and 90 lashes....

Saudi convicts young man for kissing woman in mall

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – A Saudi court convicted a man and sentenced him to four months in prison and 90 lashes for kissing a woman in a mall, a government-owned daily reported Thursday.

bravedave wrote:Private employer, published policy

GPHMTA!

When asked when she conceived, Hamilton answered honestly: She became pregnant just three weeks prior to her Feb. 20 wedding.

Contract or policy OK, but can they even ask this???

I guess they can ask what they want, maybe my question is, does she legally have to answer?

I think the issue here for me is that the employer still must comply with certain Federal and State employment and anti-discrimination laws. I'm not sure how you have a "morality" code that doesn't violate these laws. If the code itself doesn't violate the law...investigating a potential breech of "morality" certainly must. You aren't permitted to ask (in this case) a woman what her "child rearing practices" are...if she is married...if she wants to get married...or what kind of birth control she uses. I HOPE SHE WINS...I can't stand self-righteous people whose sole job in life is to dictate morality to everyone else......

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

The NFL has a morality code. Players get suspended without pay. Are they being discriminated against? They don't even need to be convicted of a crime. Just the acquisition is enough to be suspended.

JollyMon66 wrote:I HOPE SHE WINS...I can't stand self-righteous people whose sole job in life is to dictate morality to everyone else......

While I agree with you on this point, I also can't stand people that break known rules, suffer the consequences and blame the rule maker for their troubles. This woman didn't have to take that job, she could have applied for a position at a public school where they celebrate promiscuity.

Skibo wrote:The NFL has a morality code. Players get suspended without pay. Are they being discriminated against? They don't even need to be convicted of a crime. Just the acquisition is enough to be suspended.

JollyMon66 wrote:I HOPE SHE WINS...I can't stand self-righteous people whose sole job in life is to dictate morality to everyone else......

While I agree with you on this point, I also can't stand people that break known rules, suffer the consequences and blame the rule maker for their troubles. This woman didn't have to take that job, she could have applied for a position at a public school where they celebrate promiscuity.

I agree with that too...my only point is that if the rules violate the law (and maybe they don't) it doesn't matter what she did or didn't agree to...she has a wrongful termination case.

Skibo wrote:The NFL has a morality code. Players get suspended without pay. Are they being discriminated against? They don't even need to be convicted of a crime. Just the acquisition is enough to be suspended.

JollyMon66 wrote:I HOPE SHE WINS...I can't stand self-righteous people whose sole job in life is to dictate morality to everyone else......

While I agree with you on this point, I also can't stand people that break known rules, suffer the consequences and blame the rule maker for their troubles. This woman didn't have to take that job, she could have applied for a position at a public school where they celebrate promiscuity.

Excuse me? I'm going to assume you're just trolling, so I won't bother with a response.

It's a private Christian school. There is a moral standard they expect their teachers to live by. She answered honestly, she had relations outside of marriage, which was against their rules. She now has to deal with it.

A good friend of mine who worked in a private Christian school couldn't be seen in public drinking or with someone drinking or she would get fired.

What the heck happened to smiling coyly, batting the eyes and saying "my honeymoon".

I think she has a case in that the school shared her reason for dismissal with the public but not on the dismissal itself.

ph4ever wrote:What the heck happened to smiling coyly, batting the eyes and saying "my honeymoon".

but then know that the baby is due eight months, not nine, after said honeymoon?
I knew you could "plan" pregnancies, but I didn't know you could plan "preemies".

-"BB"-

frognot wrote:So an abortion before she looked pregnant would have enabled her to keep her job but answering a question that was nobody's business gets her fired. Way to go American Taliban! Stone the adulteress!

I'm willing to bet having an abortion — and the school finding out about it — would have gotten her fired too.

-"BB"-

Bicycle Bill wrote:

frognot wrote:So an abortion before she looked pregnant would have enabled her to keep her job but answering a question that was nobody's business gets her fired. Way to go American Taliban! Stone the adulteress!

I'm willing to bet having an abortion — and the school finding out about it — would have gotten her fired too.

-"BB"-

Wonder if the school also bugs the employee homes to double check that their employees aren't up to something "immoral" like watching South Park, sneeking a beer, or chatting on BN?

One has to wonder how many of those administrators were also guilty of "anticipating" their marriages I doubt that all of them went into their marriages totally pure. Perhaps they missed the part about the first stone...


I understand about them having different standards and making their own policies as a private school. However I think it went way beyond what is legal and right to tell children and parents that she was guilty of "fornication." For heaven's sake, this is the man she is married to and who will raise children with her, not someone she met on a street corner and took to a hotel.

Wow

nutmeg wrote:One has to wonder how many of those administrators were also guilty of "anticipating" their marriages I doubt that all of them went into their marriages totally pure. Perhaps they missed the part about the first stone...


I understand about them having different standards and making their own policies as a private school. However I think it went way beyond what is legal and right to tell children and parents that she was guilty of "fornication." For heaven's sake, this is the man she is married to and who will raise children with her, not someone she met on a street corner and took to a hotel.

My thoughts exactly.