New Jersey Supreme Court rules in favor of Catholic school that fired a teacher
Source: CNN
CNN The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Catholic school that terminated a teacher for having premarital sex, according to court documents. Victoria Crisitello began as a caregiver at St. Theresa School in Kenilworth in 2011, and in 2014, the schools principal, Sister Theresa Lee, approached Crisitello about teaching art full-time, court documents say. Crisitello, who was unmarried, told the principal she was pregnant during that meeting, according to the documents.
Crisitello alleged that a few weeks later, Lee said she violated the schools Code of Ethics by engaging in premarital sex. Crisitello said her contract was terminated and she was replaced by a teacher who was married and had children, according to court documents.
Crisitello filed a lawsuit in April 2014 against St. Theresa School, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, court documents say. She argued her firing was a mere pretext for pregnancy and marital-status discrimination, according to the lawsuit.
On Monday, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school. The court held that religious entities could use religious tenet exceptions of state employment law as an affirmative defense in facing claims of employment discrimination, and it was an uncontroverted fact that the school followed the Catholic Churchs religious tenets in terminating Crisitello. CNN has reached out to the attorney representing Crisitello for comment.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/15/us/new-jersey-catholic-school-premarital-sex-firing/index.html
Full headline: New Jersey Supreme Court rules in favor of Catholic school that fired a teacher for having premarital sex
cstanleytech
(28,473 posts)clearly religious based schools that I cannot disagree with the ruling providing the schools in question are providing it equally to everyone and not cherry picking.
AZLD4Candidate
(6,781 posts)I mean, it's traditional mormonism to be polygamous. It's "traditional" Islam to "honor kill."
There's no difference between this and "it's against my religion to make a cake for a gay marriage."
It's a bullshit exception that enable bigotry, intolerance, and sexism.
You realize Dred Scott technically has never been overturned.
Gore1FL
(22,951 posts)"Engaging in premarital sex" isn't a protected class.
AZLD4Candidate
(6,781 posts)try to unionize. And I say that being from Arizona, another "Right to Fire" state.
Gore1FL
(22,951 posts)I'm just acknowledging that is a barrier we have to deal with.
AZLD4Candidate
(6,781 posts)cstanleytech
(28,473 posts)On the issue of hospitals and churches though its still my opinion that they should not be penailized for firing people that do not share or follow their beliefs.
Why? Two reasons.
One is because people have many other options for which to seek employment rather than work for such assholes.
The second is because the Constitution protects freedom of religion and churches and hospitals specifally setup as a religious hospitals fall into the category of being protected by the Constitution imo.
AZLD4Candidate
(6,781 posts)Religion is a mask for intolerance and no one can convince me otherwise unfortunately.
cstanleytech
(28,473 posts)Anyway I know Jesus never said that and yes I know that the churches and hospitals are assholes for firing people over this bullshit excuse but it is not the issue rather its the Constitutional aspect we have to look at.
Mosby
(19,491 posts)Nt.
AZLD4Candidate
(6,781 posts)They still practice it and say it's part of their religion.
Honor Killing is part of Islam. . .research the names Tina Isa and Sarah and Amina Said.
Don't tell me "well, that's only a couple of cases." And don't tell me if I post Imans and Islamic clerics saying how honor killing is not just acceptable by necessary "doesn't represent Islam."
I lived in Malaysia, an Islamic confederation. In my time here, there were seven honor killings around the country that made press there.
So, I'm sorry, but what I said is true. You just don't like it.
Mosby
(19,491 posts)Are not part of the church, they are a spin off sect called the FLDS. Some of their leaders are in jail for crimes against woman and girls.
The LDS abandoned plural marriage some time ago.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng
Honor killings, or femicide is not condoned in Islam. It is a cultural/tribal practice that dates back to Babylonia. The practice is most common in central and South America.
https://islamiclaw.blog/2021/05/11/the-unpardonable-sin-of-honor-killing-a-fatwa/
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/femicide-rates-by-country
AZLD4Candidate
(6,781 posts)And I knew you'd do the "not condoned by Islam" line. When Imans and clerics say it's part of the religion, I'll listen to the people preaching the religion, not websites that whitewash things under confirmation bias.
Again, I lived in an Islamic country and it was accepted albeit illegal.
BlueIn_W_Pa
(842 posts)This is simply someone who voluntarily accepted a job as a teacher, and yup, you knew the terms.
lees1975
(7,046 posts)She signed the employee code of conduct which included acknowledgement of the Catholic Church's teaching on premarital sex, stating that she agreed with it as a condition of employment. When you apply for a job with a Catholic school, it would be an indication that you are in agreement with their mission and purpose, which includes promoting and supporting the doctrine and theology of the Catholic church. Parents pay tuition and put their kids in the school because they want them to be taught the Catholic faith. They have a right to expect that the staff is supporting their desire.
The employee was not discriminated against, since she was in complete control of the choices she made.
This isn't some right wing, MAGA appointed and dominated state supreme court, either.
intheflow
(30,183 posts)and who would know? She is being punished for what her male colleagues get to do simply by virtue of she was caught in the act by becoming pregnant.
cstanleytech
(28,473 posts)In this case they know and decided to terminate her employment and I would hope that they would do the same for any guy that they find out is having sex before being married or for cheating on their spouse.
msongs
(73,755 posts)iscooterliberally
(3,157 posts)Gore1FL
(22,951 posts)keithbvadu2
(40,915 posts)ET Awful
(24,788 posts)Not sure if it counts as carpentry.
cactusfractal
(578 posts)SouthernDem4ever
(6,619 posts)AZLD4Candidate
(6,781 posts)and "fired" from the church?
Oh, I know why. . .they were born penised and as we know, VICTORIA isn't a man's name.
BumRushDaShow
(169,819 posts)You made me think of this movie -
(I remember seeing it in the movies when it came out)
SomewhereInTheMiddle
(661 posts)James Garner and Robert Preston are greatly underappreciated talents and Julie Andrews is a jewel of the first water.
I'll have to watch it again.
BumRushDaShow
(169,819 posts)but that was years ago too! Have been a Julie Andrews fan since I was little thanks to her Mary Poppins.
Robert Preston was fantastic and it's always fun to see Garner in something.
SomewhereInTheMiddle
(661 posts)It is another Blake Edwards period movie with James Garner as an elderly Wyatt Earp teamed with Bruce Willis' Tom Mix in 1920's Hollywood.
Not quite as good, but still a lot of fun.
BumRushDaShow
(169,819 posts)(and fan of Peter Sellers).
(I think "Return of the Pink Panther" was the first movie I actually saw multiple times in the theater - in that case 3 - until the original Star Wars came out
)
PortTack
(35,820 posts)Warpy
(114,616 posts)and shame the ones who do.
And they wonder why I stomped off in sheer disgust.
treestar
(82,383 posts)she got fired only because they caught her. Had she used successful birth control, or OMG, had an abortion, they would never have known.
Fullduplexxx
(8,626 posts)FBaggins
(28,706 posts)This isn't the first time that the issue has come up. I'm not sure how the court would have ruled any differently.
Also - The diocese had previously fired a male teacher for the same behavior.
SouthernDem4ever
(6,619 posts)Do they have a premarital sex gespacho?
SharonClark
(10,497 posts)FBaggins
(28,706 posts)Grins
(9,459 posts)and watch them really squirm. In court. What are they going to say? Thats impossible!!!
Gore1FL
(22,951 posts)DFW
(60,192 posts)She can have a paternity test done, say its Gods DNA on the fathers side, and challenge them to prove otherwise.
BradBo
(1,015 posts)lees1975
(7,046 posts)In this case, the employee agreed with the school's code of conduct, and signed off on her agreement when she was employed. The Catholic schools I'm familiar with don't require their employees to be Catholic, but they do require them to observe the code of conduct. Even public schools have codes of conduct for their employees that are stipulated in the union contracts, indicating union support for the code. I've signed union contracts in public schools and know they have them. It's hard to argue that you've been discriminated against when you agreed to the condition, unless you were fired for violating the code and someone else wasn't.
intheflow
(30,183 posts)Because who would know they were having premarital sex? Shes being punished for becoming pregnant and not choosing to abort.
malthaussen
(18,573 posts)... they should not be legally enforceable? This is absurd. The fact that it is legal makes it no less absurd.
-- Mal