Yes, a church can fire you for getting pregnant

Guest Post by Morbo

I’m sure the New York Civil Liberties Union meant well, but its attorneys have just filed an employment grievance they are almost certain to lose and that generates lousy publicity.

Here are the facts: Michelle McCusker is a 26-year-old woman who teaches at St. Rose of Lima school in Rockaway Beach, N.Y. She is pregnant and has no intention of marrying the baby’s father. The school just fired her.

Yes, the school officials are acting like jerks. Firing a pregnant woman is mean. But the simple fact of the matter is the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom gives church leaders the right to act like jerks.

“The school singled her out because she was pregnant, and the only way they could do that was because she was a woman,” said Cassandra Stubbs, an ACLU attorney. “How do they determine if male employees engage in premarital sex?”

My guess is they don’t. Of course it’s unfair, but religious schools have the right to act in an unfair manner. They are essentially arms of the churches that sponsor them. A church can fire an employee if it doesn’t like that person’s lifestyle choices, and so can a church school. They can dump you for being gay, getting an abortion, cohabitating, failing to go to services regularly and so on.

This right is absolute — unless tax funding enters the picture. Here’s where things get interesting.

To my mind, if private religious schools and other “faith-based” institutions start getting your money and mine, they have opened themselves up to regulation by the state.

At this point, the government should be able to come in and slap all kinds of regulations on these institutions, including requiring them to abide by all manner of local, state and federal anti-discrimination laws. This is more or less what happened in Ontario, where Catholic schools have been receiving tax funds for years. Gradually, government officials began imposing non-discrimination laws on the schools. Many teachers are now non-Catholics. Church officials don’t like it, but they’re also too addicted to government money to give it up.

Back in the U.S.A., this issue is playing out in the halls of Congress, where right-wing House members constantly argue that religious groups have a religious freedom right to take massive amounts of tax support yet still impose religious qualifications on employees.

Big, fat government checks with no strings attached? It sounds to good to be true — and it is. Religious institutions might get away with it for a few years. But in the long run, tax funds come with strings, and regulation to protect the public interest is inevitable. All it will take are a few cases like McCusker’s to sway public sympathy. Right now, most people see her case as somewhat frivolous since Catholic schools in New York do not get direct tax support. (I know, I know – they get a tax exemption. The courts have ruled that’s not direct support.) If the school received, say, half of its budget from the taxpayer, McCusker would have a much stronger case legally and would probably win more public sympathy.

The New York ACLU, I’m afraid, has jumped the gun on this one. Other Catholic schoolteachers fired for violating church doctrine have filed grievances and even lawsuits, but none to my knowledge has been successful.

If current trends persist and the nation continues lurching toward public funding of faith-based schools and social services, McCusker and all those like her may have a case someday. Alas, today they do not.

To my mind, if private religious schools and other “faith-based” institutions start getting your money and mine, they have opened themselves up to regulation by the state.

Well, it’s not quite like that. The “expressive association” line of cases in First Amendment, most recently Boy Scouts of America v. Dale cuts organizations—and even organizations that receive government support of some level—considerable leeway in excluding those whose inclusion would compromise the organization’s message.

Now, this is not a membership thing, but rather an employment thing, so other stuff enters the picture. But the fact that an organization receives federal funds is not dispositive of the question whether its members’ First Amendment rights must yield to public policy.

  • In some sense churches do receive federal tax dollars–all the taxes they do not pay that we would have to. The irony is that she could have gotten an abortion and there wouldn’t have been any problem.

  • My guess is they don’t. Of course it’s unfair, but religious schools have the right to act in an unfair manner. They are essentially arms of the churches that sponsor them. A church can fire an employee if it doesn’t like that person’s lifestyle choices, and so can a church school. They can dump you for being gay, getting an abortion, cohabitating, failing to go to services regularly and so on.

    This right is absolute — unless tax funding enters the picture. Here’s where things get interesting.

    Religious organizations due have the right to be unfair, but they aren’t above the law. If a secular organization cannot fire an employee based solely on the sex or private lives there is no exception that allow religious organizations to do so just because they happen to believe that such behavior is pious.

    In looking at these sorts of issues the religious motivation is irrelevant to firing her in the eyes of the law. The law is supposed to be blind to religious matters and judge based solely on constitutionality and social harm. It may not always work out that way, but in theory that is the way law to do work.

    If the school is unable to descriminate based on sex, or if a secular instution is unable to fire an employee because their private sexual lives don’t fit with their corporate image, then neither should a religious school.

    I think there is a case here and it is rather important. Religious institutions can do whatever they want so long as it doesn’t cause harm, regardless of what they believe. This is the way it should be.

  • To my mind this raises a separate interesting issue, which is that such an action on the part of the school does not seem very pro-life. If the school opposes abortion, as I presume, firing a pregnant teacher is inimical to that position.

  • One would think that employment laws in this country would apply regardless of the religious nature of the “business”. I’m not an attorney, so I couldn’t answer that question. Private and public companies alike must abide by employment laws, why shouldn’t religious organizations?

    These organizations don’t pay taxes, yet they do take advantage of tax-supported services such as fire, police, etc. But they can pretty much discriminate against anyone they please? If that’s true, then that’s pretty sad. I guess if that’s what religious freedom is all about, then so be it. Just one more reason why I want nothing to do with organized religion.

  • Re:

    “At this point, the government should be able to come in and slap all kinds of regulations on these institutions, including requiring them to abide by all manner of local, state and federal anti-discrimination laws. This is more or less what happened in Ontario, where Catholic schools have been receiving tax funds for years. Gradually, government officials began imposing non-discrimination laws on the schools. Many teachers are now non-Catholics. Church officials don’t like it, but they’re also too addicted to government money to give it up.”

    Your facts are wrong regarding the ability of Catholic school boards in Ontario, Canada to discriminate in admissions and hiring. Publicly-funded Catholic schools have an absolute power to discriminate against non-Catholics in admissions until grade 9, when they must accept all applicants. Those same schools have an absolute power to discriminate against non-Catholics in employment and promotion at all times. In fact, one-third of the province’s publicly-funded teaching positions are effectively closed to non-Catholic applicants. Most Ontario publicly-funded “separate” school boards (as the Catholic boards are known) will only take a non-Catholic teacher on a temporary basis, and then only until they find a Catholic applicant (then it’s “ciao, baby”). A non-Catholic teacher is a rare find in Ontario’s publicly-funded Catholic system.

    What makes this an especially offensive practice is not only that Ontario Catholics are the only faith group so privileged, but that all Ontarians bear exactly the same tax burden. Ontario Catholics are guaranteed a publicly-funded choice, public and/or separate school, while non-Catholics are guaranteed only public school. The cost of the massive institutional duplication in our school system ensures our school system can never achieve its maximum educational potential.

    The religious discrimination in our school system (I’m from Ontario) resulted in Canada being found in violation of the equality provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in November 1999. In November of this year (2005), Canada was censured again for having done nothing to address that discrimination in the six years since the first condemnation by the UN Human Rights Committee.

    Our group is trying to put an end to the discrimination and waste in our school system. Education Equality in Ontario is a organization seeking the merger of the province’s public and separate school systems into a single publicly-funded system for each official language (English and French). We seek a school system in which all Ontarians enjoy equal opportunities in admissions and hiring and in which valuable education funds are no longer spent on unnecessary duplication.

    You can read more on our web site: Education Equality in Ontario.

  • Comments are closed.