Pregnancy costs teacher her job. How would you vote???

[Bob Sands]

http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2005/05/11/local.20050511-sbt-LOCL-A1-Pregnancy_costs.sto

Quote:

---

Pregnancy costs teacher her job

Religious school says baby before marriage violates standard.

By LOU MUMFORD

Tribune Staff Writer

BERRIEN SPRINGS -- At a meeting last week with school officials, Christine John was congratulated on her March marriage, John says.

Then, said the first-year kindergarten teacher at the Village Seventh-day Adventist Elementary School, she was asked why she was four months along in her pregnancy when she had been married just two months before.

John said the meeting ended when she was told her services were no longer necessary.

---

[bevin]

Yet another reason I am happy to not contribute $$$ towards this organization.

/Bevin

[Ron Lambert]

Bevin, do you mean to say that it is somehow reprehensible for the Seventh-day Adventist church to try to uphold some basic Christian moral standards in the face of the world's common custom of "shacking up" before marriage? Is shacking up righteous to you, and is chastity before marriage unimportant, unenlightened, and optional to you?

This person is a kindergarten teacher in a Seventh-day Adventist church school, probably right next door to the local Adventist church that supports it. She likely spends more time with the kids she teaches each week than their parents and the pastor of the church combined. Is it unreasonable for the church to expect her to be faithful to her duty to be a role model?

As for tempering judgment with mercy, the board did not outright fire her; it placed her on paid administrative leave until her contract expires. Most likely she was not disfellowshipped. Probably she will be able to get another teaching job at a different SDA church school in a different conference, if she wishes, since now she is married. Or perhaps being married she will not wish to pursue her teaching career, since she has a child on the way and a husband to support her.

[Ron Lambert]

Since the news item Bob Sands quoted left out some information, and wrongly stated that Christine John was "fired," rather than placed on "paid administrative leave," let me quote this item from The Daily Oakland Press of Oakland County, Michigan, Thursday May 12, 2005, page A-2. (It has not, apparently, been placed on the Internet, so I cannot provide a direct link.)

Quote:

---

Teacher punished for premarital pregnancy

.

BERRIEN SPRINGS -- A kindergarten teacher at Village Seventh-day Adventist Elementary, a private Christian school, has been placed on paid administrative leave until her contract expires because she became pregnant before she got married. School officials told Christine John that premarital sex is an act strictly forbidden by the school system and the religion.

---

[Ron Lambert]

Here is an even more detailed article (with link) published in the on-line edition of the May 11, 2005 Detroit Free Press:

Quote:

---

School punishes teacher for getting pregnant before married

May 11, 2005, 12:45 PM

.

BERRIEN SPRINGS, Mich. (AP) -- A kindergarten teacher at private Christian elementary school has been placed on paid administrative leave until her contract expires because she became pregnant before she got married.

.

Christine John, a first-year teacher at the Village Seventh-day Adventist Elementary School in Berrien Springs, said she was asked at a meeting with school officials last week why she was four months along in her pregnancy when she had been married just two months before.

.

John, 24, said school officials told her that premarital sex is an act strictly forbidden by the school system and the Seventh-day Adventist religion. In the end, she was told her services were no longer necessary.

.

Now she's considering legal action.

.

"I was very surprised. Shocked," John told the South Bend (Ind.) Tribune for a Wednesday story. "I had no clue what the meeting was about."

.

School officials said John was placed on administrative leave until her contract expires.

.

Michael Nickless, communication director for the Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, said that under the school's policies, unmarried teachers who get pregnant can be fired immediately.

.

"In our school system, our teachers are expected to be a positive spiritual example for our congregations and youth," Nickless said in a prepared statement. "When she (John) chose behavior contrary to those values, she was placed on administrative leave.

.

"Even though policy allows for immediate dismissal, out of compassion, her present contract continues to be honored and she will receive full pay and benefits until the contract expires."

.

John said her contract runs through June 8.

.

A 2003 graduate of the Seventh-day Adventist Andrews University in Berrien Springs, John said she hadn't encountered any disciplinary problems with her job until last week.

.

The Stevensville resident said that after she became pregnant, she talked to the school's principal about taking a maternity leave.

.

"I never tried to hide the situation," she said.

.

Copyright © 2005 Detroit Free Press Inc.

---

Link: http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw115641_20050511.htm

Bevin, please note these words from the above: "Even though policy allows for immediate dismissal, out of compassion, her present contract continues to be honored and she will receive full pay and benefits until the contract expires."

They didn't have to do this.

I find it amazing that the teacher would profess to be "very surprised, shocked" that such an action was taken against her, and she is considering suing. Was she never made aware of this church standard? Does she actually think she is righteous? Is she actually going to try to justify herself against the church in a court of law?

[Wiseman]

Another life is IMHO more important than job.

[bevin]

There is an up-side to this.

She will probably find a job with an organization that actually cares about people - such as a state or town school.

/Bevin

[Nicodema]

I'm kind of interested in the potential "meta discussion" -- not this woman's specific situation, but the general principle about upholding standards itself. How should standards be upheld? Is it necessary to engage in punitive action against those who do not live up to those standards in order to uphold those standards oneself? If I personally believe that Behavior X is wrong and immoral, is it not enough for me to personally eschew Behavior X? Must I then go forth and attempt to impose artificial consequences on others who fail to eschew Behavior X themselves? How, exactly, does that "uphold" the standard that dictates Behavior X is wrong? I find the whole concept rather ludicrous. It is one thing when we are talking about criminal behaviors and it is a matter for the police. It is one thing when we are talking about raising our children, where we clearly have an authoritative role as parent to fulfill. It's another thing entirely when we are talking about grown people attempting to control what other grown people do (in a situation that is not criminal in nature, that is).

I don't know, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. When I try to ask myself what Jesus would do, I can't help but think of Him stooping to write in the dust until every accuser of the woman caught in adultery had dropped their stones and slunk away. And that's the crux of the matter right there. It isn't that Jesus was saying adultery is fine, go right ahead, no sin there. If I recall correctly He had some pretty strict things to teach about what is and is not adultery. No, it's that Jesus was saying we who are ourselves sinners are in no position to execute punitive consequences on another for his or her sins. And you know what? I think Jesus was onto something there. Made the Pharisees pretty mad, too.

[Bob Sands]

Ron, if you go to the link I put in my post it gives as much detail as your links do. State it correctly. I was not leaving anything out on purpose, just giving the first three paragraphs and supplying the link to get people into the article.

It should be noted that the School and Church would not have been the wiser only the teacher went and asked for maternity leave so the school could plan for her abscence. Our schools don't pay all that well to start out with. But to be this cavalier, they wouldn't have many take the jobs, they will take their careers elsewhere, I know I have encouraged some to do just that. Sure they have a right to do this, but if the info had been held confidential it might not have to have been handled this way. Ultrasounds can be off by a month, babies can be born premature, why she approached the principal before she had a renewed contract shows how trusting she was that she was in good standing for a contract renewal.

The question I always have when the SDAs do this, is what about the souls of the these two that got married after "they" were pregnant. The church may be morally correct but when it comes to saving souls, I believe they are dead wrong.

Honoring a contract until it is expired may technically be Administrative Leave with pay, but it also technically is firing her. Read the whole article link on my post before casting erroneous summaries by yourself!!!!

[Michelle]

Nico--it's a situation made more difficult because of her teaching position. Were she an employee in an Adventist hospital or some other place, I think things could be handled differently. But being a teacher in an Adventist school means being an example to/for your children. It can be a very confusing situation for a child to be taught one thing and see another. Yes, she's an adult. But she's influencing children through her actions. No, what she's doing is not criminal in its nature. And she did not get fired from her job. Knowing the MI conf. administrators, I'm not surprised it was handled this way. They are quite compassionate men. I know, Bevin doesn't agree that we should uphold standards in our schools, but if my child sees his/her teacher for more hours in a day than he/she sees me, I want that teacher to be living the standards I'm trying to teach my children.

M

[Bob Sands]

Come on Michelle, the lady was probably hardly showing. She was honest and punished for it. My wife is an RN in Neonatal. Like I said before, conceived dates can be off by a month or two, births can be premature by that much. To say they were compassionate is ridiculous. I would be interested in whether the teacher had joyfully let everyone know she was pregnant or whether the principal violated HIPAA confidentiality laws. That Principal might have her job in jeopardy if the scenario is like I have laid out and the employer the Conference in some hotwater with the state, I would encourage the teacher to talk to an attorney, quickly.

[Robert]

Do teachers agree to certain "standards" in their contracts? If so the administrators are in clear in this situation....If not then let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

:2cents:

[Bob Sands]

WWJD?

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

WWJD?

---

My point exactly. See the above. He already showed us how He handled one woman caught in adultery. I would imagine "fornication" would not be too much different.

Michelle I get your point about wanting the standards up held for your kids but these are KINDERGARTENERS, not teenagers. They aren't likely to even notice something's "wrong" unless some gossipy adult oversteps their boundaries and lets the cat out of the bag -- and who would do that to a five year old??? To a 5 year old they would see nothing but oh, Miss Minchin became Mrs. Smith, and now the Smiths are going to have a baby. They are not going to put it together that Mrs. Smith was pregnant 2 months before the wedding (babies don't show that early) and therefore this means sin. They don't even know about sex at that age.

What they will notice is that their beloved teacher is gone, and that will cause them to have questions and wonder why someone was mean enough to fire their nice Mrs. Smith (or whatever her name is).

I'm not saying your perspective is wrong or mine is right -- I honestly don't have a fixed perspective on it; I'm just exploring my thoughts and my gut feelings. I am not attempting to argue for a fixed perspective so please don't take it that way. I'm open to listening & learning from all perspectives. This kind of thing just confuses me and pushes my "don't trust" button big time is all.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "I would be interested in whether the teacher had joyfully let everyone know she was pregnant or whether the principal violated HIPAA confidentiality laws."

For those who may not know what HIPPA means, it is a recent Federal (USA) law that applies to health-care organizations and insurance companies. As health-care worker, I do not beleive that there is any violation in the situation as described. I simply do not believe that it applies.

Further, I do not believe that the principal was likely in violation of the law.

However, I can immagine that she would be able to obtain the services of a lawyer, who would be willing to file a lawsuit. And, if filed, I can immagine that it might go to court.

Loma Linda University had a somewhat simular situation with a library employee. It resulted in a lawsuit, with a verdict in favor of the University.

[there buster]

This is actually a simple case. The teacher signed a contract. She violated one of its provisions. The contract says that she could be dismissed for that violation.

Attempts to make this about sexuality or compassion only muddy the waters. As C. S. Lewis said about a similar issue. this isn't about chastity or fornication, this is about keeping your promises.

If she failed to show up for work enough times, that would also result in her dismissal. Why? She failed to keep her end of the bargain.

Under the circumstances, the board is being quite merciful. She could be summarily dismissed, without pay. Instead, they're placing her on administrative leave, allowing her to receive pay, even though she is in default on her contract.

This will be expensive for the school. I know, I used to be a school principal and have to make budgets. It's too bad it had to come to this, but to choose the behavior is to choose the consequences. You can't jump off a cliff and decide halfway down you don't want to fall anymore.

The fact that she's only teaching kindergarten is another red herring. Every student in that school knows about this, including the teenage 7th and 8th graders. This action is teaching every one of them two things: 1)Wrong behaviors have bad consequences, and 2)we can still be caring about the wrongdoers.

The teacher put everybody in a tough situation, and the board has acquitted itself about as well as they can. Frankly, I'm surprised they actually voted to do anything.

[Bob Sands]

Greg, if the school has any health information and they do not protect it, I believe HIPAA would be involved. If she had to have a physical on file or the information about her pregnancy could be protected information. It has to do with exchange of health info.

[Bob Sands]

http://www.ecfirst.com/HIPAAShield/hipaafaq.html

Quote:

---

What organizations are effected by this new ruling under the provisions of HIPAA?

Any organization that accesses, stores, maintains, or transmits patient identifiable information or health care records are affected. Typically, heath care providers, hospitals, health plans & insurers, and health care clearinghouses are covered organizations under HIPAA and the security rulings.

---

[Bob Sands]

http://www.hipaadvisory.com/regs/HIPAAprimer.htm

Quote:

---

Who is affected?

Virtually all healthcare organizations – including all health care providers, health plans, public health authorities, healthcare clearinghouses, and self-ensured employers – as well as life insurers, information systems vendors, various service organizations, and universities.

Are there penalties?

HIPAA calls for severe civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance, including:

– fines up to $25K for multiple violations of the same standard in a calendar year

– fines up to $250K and/or imprisonment up to 10 years for knowing misuse of individually identifiable health information

---

[Bob Sands]

http://www.healthinschools.org/ejournal/2003/privacy.htm

Quote:

---

A. It is our reading of the preamble to the December 2000 final HIPAA regulations that if a school or school employee engages in a "HIPAA transaction," (defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as "the transmission of information between two parties to carry out financial or administrative activities related to health care," including filing claims), the school becomes subject to HIPAA regulation. Such transmissions also would presumably be subject to the electronic security regulations for HIPAA published this year. As to whether any guidance exists specifically for schools, we have not yet found any. We urge you to submit your question to the Office for Civil Rights at

www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa

and/or to your school district's attorney and/or your state attorney general.

---

[K]

First I'd like to say that I hate it that her business was front page news.

Second, she made a mistake and we crucified her.

In one hand we want to all say that we uphold life, and don't want women to get abortions. Our response when people mess up, is the reason women choose abortion. She could have save herself a ton of grief if she had choosen abortion.

We had this situation happen in my children's school. It wasn't handled the same way. The young teacher, who had been dating the young man several years, married the guy. She finished out her year.

They visited the our church a month ago, and they now have 3 children, and are still attending church oh and are happily still married.

K

[Michelle]

Robert--I emailed the article to my dh and talked to him at lunch about it--he worked in the same conference for 5 years--says that it is very clear in the contractual information that this is grounds for termination. So if she read it, she knew it.

M

[benherndon]

Getting pregnant is never listed in the Bible anywhere as a 'sin'. The 'sin', if any, is that the officials at the school let this get out publicly! Very short sighted! It is classical gossip! It doesn't do anybody any good--ever!!! The students in that school have no right nor any benefit in knowing about this circumstance at all.

Terminate the principal and/or the committee that let this out!!---NO, just record it as bad judgment in the dossiere!

Take care of the lady's proper health care during her pregnancy. May the child be proud of the mother for NOT aborting him/her!

My grandaughters were told many many times to avoid getting pregnant--but if the situation gets out of 'control' to always have a little preventive aid or take the morning after pill! THIS is 2005. This is NOT 1844! Times do change.

(And BTW, my own mother was born out of wedlock in NW Iowa of a half breed native American. When I'm asked what tribe, I always say, "Digger"!(but I don't know for sure. NO birth certificate exists to our knowledge. She was adopted out.)

Doesn't everybody know from experience or observation or both, that the first child often comes a bit prematurely! That's what I learned in med school!!

Faith, hope, charity!

Ben

[benherndon]

Will everybody posting on this thread take my particular lie detector test?

Who casteth the first stone?

Ben

[bevin]

Quote:

---

We had this situation happen in my children's school. It wasn't handled the same way. The young teacher, who had been dating the young man several years, married the guy. She finished out her year.

They visited the our church a month ago, and they now have 3 children, and are still attending church oh and are happily still married.

---

Wait - you mean she didn't engage a lawyer and sue the church?

Thank you for showing there are some parts of the organization that do know how to treat people properly.

/Bevin