I guess she couldn't read
"Catholic school fires pregnant, unwed teacher" An unmarried teacher says she was discriminated against and fired from her job at a Roman Catholic school in New York for being pregnant and has filed a federal complaint.Elsewhere in the article is the mention of the inevitable lawsuit. My question is: Didn't the plaintiff read the condition of employment that mentioned the morality clause? You would think that someone who has had even the minimum education to be a teacher would be familiar with the idea of a contract. And even those with less than that level of education can easily understand that a Catholic school would be concerned with morals.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn said on Tuesday that Michelle McCusker's situation was difficult, but the Saint Rose of Lima School had had no choice but to follow the principles contained in its teachers' handbook dictating that "a teacher can not violate the tenets of Catholic morality."
McCusker, 26, was dismissed from the school after telling school administrators she was pregnant and did not plan to marry (Yahoo! News).
The public schools I taught in had morals clauses in contracts and the idea was always in teacher's minds when curriculum and extra-curricular activities were planned. Moral issues were frequently discussed at official meetings and the administration would focus on morals issues in interviews. While it was illegal to teach specific morals, this concentration at the staff level helped ensure that we would be good models of community-approved morals.
I'm not really surprised that the New York Civil Liberties Union is helping McCusker with the suit. But if they do win I hope they use some of the money to get her some reading lessons.
