A lady Teri james has just been fired from a christian college, san diego christian college elcapan for being pregnant as she is not yet married. The lady has in turn sued back.Teri James has since filed a lawsuit against San Diego Christian College in El Cajon claiming wrongful termination.
She admits that she became pregnant through having premarital sex, and has claimed that this was the reason the Christian college dismissed her. James has now hired high profile attorney, Gloria Allred, to argue her case against SDCC. James has claimed that she was told by the human resources director at the college that she was not being fired for being pregnant, but instead for engaging in premarital sex. She claims she was given two options; quit or be fired. Allred has made clear these allegations, telling media sources: "The HR director indicated that she was not being fired because she was pregnant. Instead, she was being terminated because she had premarital sex."James, who is currently six months pregnant, revealed her lawsuit at a press conference in California in mid-February, stating that she is suing the university due to discrimination by gender, pregnancy, and marital status.




http://www.elijahforce..com/2013/03/to-be-or-not-to-be-another-fired-teacher.html

I work in a public school and I'm still disappointed when an unmarried teacher conceives a child out of wedlock, even if they get married right away. To me, this is not the example we want for students even in a secular institution. This was not some "hidden code" or work policy, it was well-known and expected. Some Christian colleges expel students for this behavior or give them stiff discipline. How can they expect students to abide by the rules of the college if faculty and staff are not bound by those same rules?? Forgiving her and helping her, I agree, but giving her job back, I do not agree.

efosanice: I work in a public school and I'm still disappointed when an unmarried teacher conceives a child out of wedlock, even if they get married right away. To me, this is not the example we want for students even in a secular institution. This was not some "hidden code" or work policy, it was well-known and expected. Some Christian colleges expel students for this behavior or give them stiff discipline. How can they expect students to abide by the rules of the college if faculty and staff are not bound by those same rules?? Forgiving her and helping her, I agree, but giving her job back, I do not agree.

Don't forget, such students are generally minors. As adults, the staff working in such a school shouldn't be held to the same rules.

I see the sentiment in the situation, but I don't agree with the work ethics behind it.

InesQor:
Don't forget, such students are generally minors. As adults, the staff working in such a school shouldn't be held to the same rules.

I see the sentiment in the situation, but I don't agree with the work ethics behind it.

On the contrary, I'll side with the school on this one. Every organization has it's values and once a an employee breaches them, the organization has the right to terminate her employment.

Her case is not much different from football clubs prohibiting their players from playing casual football in the park or the case of Ronaldinho's contract with Pepsi terminated because he was caught drinking Coca-cola.
Her pre-marital sex goes against the Christian image the school is trying to uphold just as Ronaldinho drinking Coca-Cola goes against the image Pepsi was trying to uphold.

The only scenario where I see the woman having a case is if such a situation was not covered in her contract.

InesQor:
Don't forget, such students are generally minors. As adults, the staff working in such a school shouldn't be held to the same rules.

I see the sentiment in the situation, but I don't agree with the work ethics behind it.

working in a school has made me realize that the so called minors look up to us for everything, they see us all as examples, and having a child out of wedlock would be a bad example.

efosanice: I work in a public school and I'm still disappointed when an unmarried teacher conceives a child out of wedlock, even if they get married right away. To me, this is not the example we want for students even in a secular institution. This was not some "hidden code" or work policy, it was well-known and expected. Some Christian colleges expel students for this behavior or give them stiff discipline. How can they expect students to abide by the rules of the college if faculty and staff are not bound by those same rules?? Forgiving her and helping her, I agree, but giving her job back, I do not agree.

Shut up. What is your business with how another adult wants to live his/her life. Does your working in public school mean you must define the sexual or moral life of others?

Seriously you have physiological issues, you mean you get disappointed when a teacher decides to have a child without necessarily getting married? And so should be punished for a purely private decision? So please tell me how a teacher's pregnancy- married or unmarried affect the educational, moral, psychological or social development of a child. Does a child even understand the implication of marriage, pregnancy and pre-marital or post-marital sex? It is bigots like you that would indoctinate little children in adult issues that they are not expected to understand until they are young adults.

You are an hypocrite also, so what should happen to male teachers that decides to father children also. Oh, they dont get pregnant. But they did engage in pre-marital se.x. So the problem is not pre-marital sex itself but pre-marital pregnancy.

I think you need to get a se.xual life - pre-marital or otherwise, it would help you ease your years of bottled up tensions and emotions.

Mr_Anony2:
On the contrary, I'll side with the school on this one. Every organization has it's values and once a an employee breaches them, the organization has the right to terminate her employment.

Her case is not much different from football clubs prohibiting their players from playing casual football in the park or the case of Ronaldinho's contract with Pepsi terminated because he was caught drinking Coca-cola.
Her pre-marital sex goes against the Christian image the school is trying to uphold just as Ronaldinho drinking Coca-Cola goes against the image Pepsi was trying to uphold.

The only scenario where I see the woman having a case is if such a situation was not covered in her contract.

And this is why I said I understand the sentiments. It is mere sentiment if it is not covered in the contract. Here they are filing for wrongful termination; she was fired for having premarital s'ex and not for being pregnant out of wedlock. And the only way they knew she had premarital s'ex was because she was discovered pregnant.

However, according to the news source, there is a "community covenant" signed before an employee is hired, forbidding pre-marital se'x, adultery and homose'xual behaviour. The point that she is making is that she would never have been found out if not that she was pregnant. e.g. any single male staff in the school could be having se'x every day and nobody would ever know. So she's pushing for gender discrimination.

As much as I agree that her act was irresponsible (considering her standing in the organization and it's branding), I still say that adult staff and minors in a school should not be held to the same rules UNLESS it is covered in their contract. Parents entrust the school to make decisions on behalf of their minors, but adults already have such an agency in themselves.

P.S. That's how you just stopped all our communication.

wirinet:

Shut up. What is your business with how another adult wants to live his/her life. Does your working in public school mean you must define the sexual or moral life of others?

Seriously you have physiological issues, you mean you get disappointed when a teacher decides to have a child without necessarily getting married? And so should be punished for a purely private decision? So please tell me how a teacher's pregnancy- married or unmarried affect the educational, moral, psychological or social development of a child. Does a child even understand the implication of marriage, pregnancy and pre-marital or post-marital sex? It is bigots like you that would indoctinate little children in adult issues that they are not expected to understand until they are young adults.

You are an hypocrite also, so what should happen to male teachers that decides to father children also. Oh, they dont get pregnant. But they did engage in pre-marital se.x. So the problem is not pre-marital sex itself but pre-marital pregnancy.

I think you need to get a se.xual life - pre-marital or otherwise, it would help you ease your years of bottled up tensions and emotions.

Take it easy. There was a binding contract, and Georgia, the state in the U.S. supports such a contract.

http://www.elijahforce..com/2013/03/to-be-or-not-to-be-another-fired-teacher.html
The only problem is she works at San Diego Christian College in El Cajon where the school has put in place a clear doctrinal position that all employees must adhere to. The school mandates that all job candidates sign a "community covenant" before they are hired, which explicitly states that all employees will "abstain from sexually immoral behavior, including pre-marital sex, adultery, pornography and homosexuality."

The San Diego Christian College is by no means the first Christian institution to enforce biblical ethics on employees to maintain its integrity. In 2008 Shorter University enforced a new policy called the Personal Lifestyle Statement, which explicitly forbade pre-marital sex, adultery, and homosexual behavior. In that case, although a number of employees became disgruntled about the new policy, it was found to be completely legal in the state of Georgia.

InesQor:
And this is why I said I understand the sentiments. It is mere sentiment if it is not covered in the contract. Here they are filing for wrongful termination; she was fired for having premarital s'ex and not for being pregnant out of wedlock. And the only way they knew she had premarital s'ex was because she was discovered pregnant.

However, according to the news source, there is a "community covenant" signed before an employee is hired, forbidding pre-marital se'x, adultery and homose'xual behaviour. The point that she is making is that she would never have been found out if not that she was pregnant. e.g. any single male staff in the school could be having se'x every day and nobody would ever know. So she's pushing for gender discrimination.

As much as I agree that her act was irresponsible (considering her standing in the organization and it's branding), I still say that adult staff and minors in a school should not be held to the same rules UNLESS it is covered in their contract. Parents entrust the school to make decisions on behalf of their minors, but adults already have such an agency in themselves.

Now that you make it clear that she signed the contract but rather is sueing for gender discrimination, I'll have to say that I also don't see how she has a case. In fact I am even more certain now that she doesn't. The school is not under any obligation to go snooping around for incriminating evidence of those who are breaking it's rules. i.e. There are could also be female staff having pre-marital sex and getting away with it. I am convinced that if the school came by evidence e.g. video evidence of their bachelor male teachers having sexual intercourse, they would also sack them. It is not the school's fault that she decided to parade her "evidence" in front of everybody. She had the right to resign if she wanted to breach the agreement.

The way I see it, the only way her gender discrimination case can stand is if she can provide instances where the school caught male staff doing the same thing she did and yet refused to fire them.

On a side note though, the court case makes for a good media uproar to rile the public some more against those "bigoted discriminatory religious organizations". And my two cents says that's probably why her lawyer encouraged her to sue. A little media noise can tilt public opinion and help propaganda along and maybe eventually change laws

P.S. That's how you just stopped all our communication.

How do you mean?

@Mr_Anony2

Note that I am not taking sides with her. I'm just saying, the way these things go especially in the U.S. don't be surprised that she might have a case.

I was referring initially to Efosanice's comment that school rules MUST be binding on both staff and students; I think this should not be the case unless there is a binding contract to that effect.

I have to side with the school on this one.

The woman knew what she's getting into before and after she got hired as a teacher in that particular institution, and violating the rule/code, however accidentally translates that she must/should get fired.

Trying to get her job back by playing the pregnant woman card wouldn't work in this case, I'm afraid because she willingly and voluntarily signed a contract that barred her from getting pregnant without getting married first.

Mr_Anony2:
On the contrary, I'll side with the school on this one. Every organization has it's values and once a an employee breaches them, the organization has the right to terminate her employment.

Her case is not much different from football clubs prohibiting their players from playing casual football in the park or the case of Ronaldinho's contract with Pepsi terminated because he was caught drinking Coca-cola.
Her pre-marital sex goes against the Christian image the school is trying to uphold just as Ronaldinho drinking Coca-Cola goes against the image Pepsi was trying to uphold.

The only scenario where I see the woman having a case is if such a situation was not covered in her contract.

Gbam! You nailed it.

InesQor: @Mr_Anony2

Note that I am not taking sides with her. I'm just saying, the way these things go especially in the U.S. don't be surprised that she might have a case.

I was referring initially to Efosanice's comment that school rules MUST be binding on both staff and students; I think this should not be the case unless there is a binding contract to that effect.

I am not saying that you are taking sides neither am I disagreeing with you. If there is a contract and she breached it, then the school has the right to terminate her appointment. Simples

I am also pointing to the fact that the case might really be aimed at raising media and public sentiment rather than justice

Mr_Anony2:
I am not saying that you are taking sides neither am I disagreeing with you. If there is a contract and she breached it, then the school has the right to terminate her appointment. Simples

I am also pointing to the fact that the case might really be aimed at raising media and public sentiment rather than justice

Yeah makes sense

InesQor:
Yeah makes sense

Yeah, in other news what did you mean when you said this:

InesQor:
P.S. That's how you just stopped all our communication.

Mr_Anony2:

Yeah, in other news what did you mean when you said this:

I thought you are someone I know off Nairaland. Let's assume it's a case of mistaken identity. Please accept my apologies.

I would have thought you'll leave the matter when I chose to do the same.

InesQor:
I thought you are someone I know off Nairaland. Let's assume it's a case of mistaken identity. Please accept my apologies.

I would have thought you'll leave the matter when I chose to do the same.

Lol, I thought you were someone that knew me off NL but somehow I had long broken contact with and probably forgotten.
That's why I probed further. I was seeking some sort of reminder. Anyway, no worries.

Mr_Anony2:
Lol, I thought you were someone that knew me off NL but somehow I had long broken contact with and probably forgotten.
That's why I probed further. I was seeking some sort of reminder. Anyway, no worries.

Hahaha not to worry, I am someone who pays attention to details, too. I left it off because IF you were indeed the person (or if you would like me to refer to you as the person), you would have instantly known who I am given the way I put that statement. I wish you a splendid week ahead!

Mr_Anony2:
On the contrary, I'll side with the school on this one. Every organization has it's values and once a an employee breaches them, the organization has the right to terminate her employment.

Her case is not much different from football clubs prohibiting their players from playing casual football in the park or the case of Ronaldinho's contract with Pepsi terminated because he was caught drinking Coca-cola.
Her pre-marital sex goes against the Christian image the school is trying to uphold just as Ronaldinho drinking Coca-Cola goes against the image Pepsi was trying to uphold.

The only scenario where I see the woman having a case is if such a situation was not covered in her contract.

yes, every organization is entitled to its values, but not when it is in conflict with your basic human right and dignity. For example, you cannot decree how one lives his/personal life outside the work place. Also yes, you cannot discriminate based on se.x religion or political affiliations and even moral definitions after being employed. Yes, these can be put into consideration before employment, not after. Even if it is in the contract of employment, it can later be contested in court as an illegal contract if it goes against basic fundamental human rights.

You cannot compare a football playing football in a park and risking injury to someone exercises her basic animal right on the right to bear children.

Same for Pepsi advert, who pay superstars huge sums to project their image. It would be unethical for the stars to be seen projecting the image of the company they are advertising

wirinet:

yes, every organization is entitled to its values, but not when it is in conflict with your basic human right and dignity. For example, you cannot decree how one lives his/personal life outside the work place. Also yes, you cannot discriminate based on se.x religion or political affiliations and even moral definitions after being employed. Yes, these can be put into consideration before employment, not after. Even if it is in the contract of employment, it can later be contested in court as an illegal contract if it goes against basic fundamental human rights.

You cannot compare a football playing football in a park and risking injury to someone exercises her basic animal right on the right to bear children.

Same for Pepsi advert, who pay superstars huge sums to project their image. It would be unethical for the stars to be seen projecting the image of the company they are advertising

Dude, stop your blind arguments. You are starting to sound ridiculous.

Good morning eforce,

I am of the opinion that the school did nothing wrong to have asked the lady to leave considering that there was a binding contract before she was employed. If she did not like the conditions of employment she would have simply walked away and sought employment somewhere else.

It can be argued that parents who send their kids to such schools do so because of the school's sense of morality. If the school renege on the promise made to the parents then they will definitely be in the wrong. This lady knows what the school stands for and in good faith accepted the terms. Now that she has gone against the contract of agreement then it is only proper that she accepts the consequence in good faith.


Thank you!

@wirinet

You are a stark illiterate. No offence intended.

Frostyzone:

Dude, stop your blind arguments. You are starting to sound ridiculous.

What is ridiculous about the argument? What i find ridiculous is an employer dictating when, how and with who an employee should have a child with. It is more ridiculous for an employer to impose their personal moral views on the personal lives of employees.

I honestly do not understand why who a woman sleeps with or decides to have a baby with bothers others so much to the point of hysteria.

If a woman decides to have a child without a husband or buy a donated sper.m from a sper.m bank or even decides to adopt a baby, it is her prerogative. Please learn to worry about what concerns you ie, how to get a job, spouse, children etc, and how to contribute to make the lives of others better.

fluid26: @wirinet

You are a stark illiterate. No offence intended.

no offense taken. But is glaring between you and me who the illiterate is.

It might be painful for you to accept, but we live in a free world. A single woman can sleep with whom soever she chooses. She can also choose to have children without being forced to marry.

Quit living in the 19th century where women were controlled and oppressed and jump into the 21st century of liberated and empowered women.

Dude, I spelt that correctly. 'Offense' is US. Ok?
However, I won't linger to bandy words with you as you are hell-bent on displaying your ignorance.

An agreement is binding on the parties involved. Teri James cannot sue for an order of specific performance or otherwise. She was bound by agreement [moral or ethical]. This cannot be overemphasized. Mr Anony et al have already discussed the issue extensively. What more can we say to knock some sense in? Huh?

Again, no offence intended. Balm wounded pride and embrace 'glaring' logic.

Frostyzone:

Dude, stop your blind arguments. You are starting to sound ridiculous.

Lol u will see more twist and swirls all to prove that a woman who signed an aggrement (I.e. Accepted a condition and agreed to bind herself by such agreement) is not bounded by such agreement! Wow it seems like PDP a lot of Nigerians don't believe you are bounded by agreement u sign and agree to abide by! 100% support the school right to hold its staff responsible for faltering on their agreement! Honor demands such from people, a world where agreements are nothing more than a piece of paper is world where dishonesty and dubious characters reign that seems to be the sort of problem Nigeria faces!

All that matters is the contract the teacher signed. No premarital sex. Period.

It doesn't matter how foolish the codes of the college are, what matters is that she entered into a binding contract with the college. I find it to be silly and hypocritical of christian colleges to be asking such of employees but there you go.

However, the school might have to amend its policies if the only way for them to identify premarital sex is through pregnancy. That there is a lawsuit for gender discrimination.

fluid26: Dude, I spelt that correctly. 'Offense' is US. Ok?
However, I won't linger to bandy words with you as you are hell-bent on displaying your ignorance.

An agreement is binding on the parties involved. Teri James cannot sue for an order of specific performance or otherwise. She was bound by agreement [moral or ethical]. This cannot be overemphasized. Mr Anony et al have already discussed the issue extensively. What more can we say to knock some sense in? Huh?

Again, no offence intended. Balm wounded pride and embrace 'glaring' logic.

once again no Offense taken (sorry Nigeria officially recognise queens English as lingua franca).

I must congress that i am not a lawyer, but i know that not every agreement is binding. An illegal agreement cannot be binding even if it was signed by both parties. What i am contesting is the legality of a law that discriminates and affects only women. Even in state governments make laws that are rendered a nullity. For example if you make someone sign an agreement that he will give 10% kickback if awarded a contract and the person reneged on the agreement, the contract awardee cannot withhold final payment based on the illegal agreement. The problem is most people do not contest laws in the courts dues to expensive and rigorous litigation process. That is why this case would be a very interesting case, because i expect the lawyer to contest the legality of the agreement in a country practising a secular constitution.

For example, if a person awarding a contract makes the person bidding for the contract sign to pay the awardee a kickback of 10% before the contact can be awarded and the person reneged but fulfilled all other terms of the contract, the person can sue the awardee to collect his money because the agreement was illegal, null and void in the first place.

wirinet:

I must congress that i am not a lawyer, but i know that not every agreement is binding. An illegal agreement cannot be binding even if it was signed by both parties. What i am contesting is the legality of a law that discriminates and affects only women. Even in state governments make laws that are rendered a nullity. For example if you make someone sign an agreement that he will give 10% kickback if awarded a contract and the person reneged on the agreement, the contract awardee cannot withhold final payment based on the illegal agreement. The problem is most people do not contest laws in the courts dues to expensive and rigorous litigation process. That is why this case would be a very interesting case, because i expect the lawyer to contest the legality of the agreement in a country practising a secular constitution.

You got it, not all agreements can be held to be binding in law! Interesting case. It will boil down to whether pre-marital sex is illegal under the country's laws, and then they will have to show they did not fire her for being pregnant! I think she's got them one way or the other!

i think this post should be on front page.

wirinet:

yes, every organization is entitled to its values, but not when it is in conflict with your basic human right and dignity. For example, you cannot decree how one lives his/personal life outside the work place. Also yes, you cannot discriminate based on se.x religion or political affiliations and even moral definitions after being employed. Yes, these can be put into consideration before employment, not after. Even if it is in the contract of employment, it can later be contested in court as an illegal contract if it goes against basic fundamental human rights.

You cannot compare a football playing football in a park and risking injury to someone exercises her basic animal right on the right to bear children.

Same for Pepsi advert, who pay superstars huge sums to project their image. It would be unethical for the stars to be seen projecting the image of the company they are advertising

My dear friend, If you are going to claim that a contract that limits a person's sexual activity is a breach of basic human rights, then I fail to see how it is not equally a breach of basic human rights to dictate what soft drink a person chooses to drink. You can't have it both ways my dear.