Jarrestta Hamilton has been fired as a fourth grade teacher at Southland Christian School in Florida after administrators declared her a fornicator. Hamilton was about to be married but became pregnant before her vows — leading to her dismissal. She has now filed a discrimination lawsuit.
The problems began at the St. Cloud, Florida school when Hamilton raised the issue of maternity leave. She was already married at the time (April 2009) and was asked about the due date. She admitted that the baby was conceived before the marriage. She is alleging discrimination based on her pregnancy and marital status.
I personally find the school’s actions to be perfectly medieval. However, the school has a right in my view to impose their own faith-based code of conduct as a private institution. Indeed, this appears another example of the increasing conflict between anti-discrimination laws and religious values that I recently explored in a column. Of course, she may be able to show that this is all a sham and merely an effort to avoid the costs of maternity leave — particularly if she can show prior cases handled differently.
We have seen other recent examples of such disciplinary action taken against students (here and here). This is not just religious schools however. Teachers have been disciplined or fired for matters related to their private lives, here and here).
Putting aside the associational rights of the school, Ms. Hamilton has every right to be irate over her treatment and this Hawthornesque action.
For the full story, click here.
This school has this right. Any business should have it too. I want the right to hire whatever kind of employee I wish to hire.
My business is my property. If people don’t like how I run it, they can avoid it.
Alas, in fascist America, such notions about private property are rare.
mespo is spot-on, imho.
Elaine M.,
As to the acceptable part you are correct. It should not make a difference but the thoughts that I have heard said are well, I cannot repeat them here. They most certainly would be deleted.
Elaine M.,
You left out the most salient point of mespos’ oration. The 14th Amendment which ties into Title IX funding.
The Due Process Clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. The clause as I understand it has also been used to recognize “substantive due process” rights, such as parent(al) and marriage rights, and “procedural due process” rights.
The Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions.
The clause later became the basis for Brown v. “KANSAS” Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States.
What a lot of folks do not realize is that reparation cases that have been heard are summarized in the 4th section of the 14th amendment.
“But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”
It has a lot of powerful objection and was in response to the XIII Amendment, which abolished slavery and this section prohibits the pay to or for the slave(s) owned.
IMHO, it was none of Hamilton’s boss’s business when she conceived her child.
I agree with AY and Buddha about one of the issues being a black woman marrying a white man–but I disagree with AY that it’s any more acceptable for a black man to marry a white woman–at least in some people’s eyes.
**********
Mespo wrote:
I am a continually amazed that a deluded sense of morality trumps the equal protection of laws. I wonder if the Southland Christian School disciplines men who “fornicate” but who don’t have the biological proof displayed about their abdomen. I also wonder if we would be so accepting of discrimination if the firing was because of her race. As we all know, this would have been the case in the Mormon Church before 1978.
Religion is no shield from the civil law, nor should it be.
Excellent points!
Mespo has, as usual, hit on the crucial point. Did the school discriminate equally with men and women employees. If they had terminated a male teacher for the same actions, they would have a better case.
Here is a religious organizations findings/suggestions:
http://www.acsi.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=QyLUErTfvw4%3D&tabid=585&language=en-US
Tom D. Arch:
“If Ms. Hamilton is smart enough to realize that employers should stay out of their employees’ personal lives, and/or that men and women (and others) should be treated equally by employers, then she shouldn’t associate with “conservative” American evangelical groups, let alone be employed by one of them.”
********************
Personally, I agree, but why excuse the bigot to punish the fool? By the way, I still have no idea why we excuse unlawful behavior and excuse unequal application of the law because of religious objections. I see no “safe haven” for religious bigotry in the Fourteenth Amendment.
What if Hamilton had signed an agreement saying she wouldn’t date (or marry) a white man? Would that be enforceable?
Bob Jones University had rule like that and it seems to have been legal. They gave it up for PR reasons.
Prof. Turley wrote:
“Ms. Hamilton has every right to be irate…”
I disagree. She, presumably, knew what she was getting into by associating with this organization. It’s entirely possible that the organization believes that it is God’s will to treat men and women unequally. So be it.
If Ms. Hamilton is smart enough to realize that employers should stay out of their employees’ personal lives, and/or that men and women (and others) should be treated equally by employers, then she shouldn’t associate with “conservative” American evangelical groups, let alone be employed by one of them.
“I thought we only treated OTHER PEOPLE in discriminatory, unfair and cruel ways. Boo hoo! It’s so unfair that they are treating ME in these ways! Whine, whine. I’m going to sue!”
Why should the rest of us as a society and as a government expend effort to protect people who freely got themselves into these situations? I don’t see that she was forced or coerced into this situation by systemic financial imbalance, racism, sexism, xenophobia or homophobia. She could have taken other jobs, potentially teaching at other schools. (Actually, I wonder if she has the qualifications to teach at a “real” school?) Instead, she made this bed, let her sleep in it.
It’s the same dam thing over and over again. Honestly, these religious folk are just plain tiresome in their collective hypocrisy.
I don’t think it matters if there was an agreement she signed or a faculty code of conduct or anything if it is indeed a private institution with no govt assistance. I think only the possibility of unequal treatment as compared to past cases would save her here, which seems to be what she’s filed her case based on… discrimination. That is, unless there is a state law or educational accreditation group with standards regarding cause for termination.
Was there some sort of “morals clause” that this violates? Given that the Bible belt has high rates of out-of-wedlock births, she’s probably a better role model than the usual run of evangelical protestant hypcocrites.
“However, the school has a right in my view to impose their own faith-based code of conduct as a private institution.”
*****************
I am a continually amazed that a deluded sense of morality trumps the equal protection of laws. I wonder if the Southland Christian School disciplines men who “fornicate” but who don’t have the biological proof displayed about their abdomen. I also wonder if we would be so accepting of discrimination if the firing was because of her race. As we all know, this would have been the case in the Mormon Church before 1978.
Religion is no shield from the civil law, nor should it be.
If parents pay the tuition, with no government help, and there’s no public school busing of students, they can make almost any rule they want.
I assume this lady knew the rules when she was first hired and has no case unless she can prove others were treated differently – or that they just want to get out of paying for maternity leave – as Professor Turley remarks.
I have a relative that was layed off from a religious school system and in all the 20+ years she’d worked for them, they’d never payed unemployment insurance – apparently they were not required to carry it like a public system.
Since this happened 2 weeks before the school was scheduled to start – they completely shut it down – she was in a really bad situation.
Religious institutions should be required to pay taxes just like any other institution.
Buddha,
I was just asking. It seems to be ok or at least accepted for a black man to marry a white woman, but when the roles reverse its not acceptable at all. Don’t know why, just my experience.
I’m also with AY here. Methinks the color of her family’s collective skin is an unspoken player for sure.
Oh, yeah, speaking of wine, would Jesus be welcome at that school, considering he came eating and drinking, while His cousin JOhn the Baptist neither ate bread nor drank wine. (Luke 7:33-34). Jesus couldn’t be talking about water here, where He draws a distinction between his own dietary habits and John’s. Everyone drinks water! And don’t forget Christ’s very first recorded miracle was to turn water into wine (John 2:1-11). Christians claim it was only Welchs Grape Juice Jesus served at the party, but vacuum sealing hadn’t been invented back then, so that’s impossible. Jesus said that NOTHING going into a man defiles him, only what comes out (Matt.15:11). Paul condemned drinking to excess, but commanded Christians to let NO MAN judge you for what you eat and drink (Col.2:16).
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone! some of the preachers who holler the loudest about the sanctity of the family home are adulterers. Only difference is, it’s hushed up and people have short memories. One of the most vociferous TV preachers on TBN committed adultery with a cutie in his congregation back in the 70’s. Then he divorced his innocent wife, leaving her and their children for this other woman, who now ministers alongside her husband as if nothing had happened. This other saint who carries the cross around the world dumped a heavier cross on his first wife by divorcing her and marrying a blonde bombshell, leaving his first wife to care for his big bunch of kids (including a handicapped son) all alone. A popular prophecy author has been married FOUR (4) TIMES! What’s wrong with the first three women, anyway, or is this preacher the perfect one in the crowded relationship? Fornicatoers try before they buy. Adulterers buy before they try and move on to some sweeter temptation. Which is worse? What crass hypocrisy! Christians feel more secure when there’s somebody worse to paint as a sinner. It makes them feel holier, I guess.
If she signed any type of code of conduct, does she still have a case?
I worked at a “Christian” daycare that wanted employees to sign an agreement that said the person agreed not to drink, do drugs, have premaritial relations, live with a boyfriend/girlfriend, nor engage in homosexual behavior. Supposedly, if you were living with your boyfriend, they could fire you.
I never signed it. I told them that their employees personal lives were none of their business. I also pointed out that they hired my boss, who got pregnant by a fellow church member when they were just dating one month. She was 2 months pregnant when she married the man. Married in late March and had a 9lb baby in early October. Preemie? I think not.
I said if they fired her, I’d sign the paper. It’d be the right thing for them to do, set an example that it applies to everyone!
That pissed them off and they dropped the issue.
When working with kids, one needs a glass of wine or two to relax at the end of the day.
I wonder if a black woman marrying a white man had anything to do with the decision? Christian school, Florida? Makes one wonder.