Adult American Citizen Fired for Having Sex Out of Wedlock
Those self-appointed moral scolds appear to be getting kind of restless down in Florida ...
Fourth-grade teacher Jarretta Hamilton was newly married and expecting a baby when she went to speak with her supervisors in April of last year.
But the administrators at Southland Christian School in St. Cloud parried her query about maternity leave with a query of their own: When did she conceive?
After Hamilton admitted that her child had been conceived about three weeks before her February 20, 2009, wedding, the school fired her.
Now she's suing in federal court. [...]
"She wants compensation for the loss of the job, and she's seeking compensatory damages for emotional distress," said Edward Gay, Hamilton's attorney who filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Orlando.
In the complaint, which asks for a trial by jury, Hamilton alleges her termination was based on the fact of her pregnancy — and that the school offended her by disclosing the information about when she conceived to other school staffers and the parents of students Hamilton taught during the 2008-2009 school year. [...]
A July 20, 2009, letter signed by school administrator Julie Ennis explains why the school's administrators thought they had to fire Hamilton:
"Jarretta was asked not to return because of a moral issue that was disregarded, namely fornication, sex outside of marriage," the letter reads. "The employment application, which she filled out, clearly states that as a leader before our students we require all teachers to maintain and communicate the values and purpose of our school."
The letter declares that sex outside of marriage is immoral and that other pregnant teachers have been able to remain employed with the school because they conceived within marriage.
"We request that Jarretta withdraw her complaint and consider the testimony of the Lord," closed the letter.
Good God, what sanctimonious crap.
It's a private "Christian" school, so it'll no doubt win it's case in court, as it should. Or I should say: as it should if it were really about the moral outrage. But, while conceding that I have no evidence to support the belief, I'd say this was about getting rid of a pregnant employee so they wouldn't have to cover her maternity leave and health-care costs. If that's the case, it's mighty Christian of them, no?