Skip to main content

A former employee at a Christian college has enlisted the help of high-profile attorney Gloria Allred to sue a California school that allegedly fired her for engaging in premarital sex, NBC's "Today" reports. In a bizarre twist, the school reportedly went on to offer the pregnant woman's job to her then-fiance.

Teri James, 29, told the news outlet that she did sign a two-page contract with San Diego Christian College that included a provision agreeing not to engage in "sexually immoral behavior including premarital sex."

"I needed a job in this economy and so I never thought that anything would happen," James explained to "Today."

But James said she was humiliated after being pulled into her supervisor's office last fall, where she was asked if she was pregnant and then was let go. After James lost her job, she claims the school offered a position to her now-husband, even though they were aware he'd had sex before getting married, too.

During a news conference featured in a KTLA report, James said she felt she was treated unfairly.

"I was unmarried, pregnant and they took away my livelihood," James said. 

 

More:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...chool_n_2790085.html

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

wow...

 

I was ready to say that if a person agrees to certain conditions in consideration for employment and providing those conditions do not break the law in some way then you can't cry, "not fair" when you break the agreement.  "Yes", a person has a right to their own choices to engage or not to engage in sexual activity...regardless of your choice, you must own the consequences of your decision.

 

BUT...I can't say that if it's proven to be true that the school then offered the woman's fiance (now husband) her position.  If that's the case then it seem that it would be a claim of "sexual" discrimination (pardon the pun).

She is going to win.  And that is a very good thing.  Its about time that these institutions got a slap in the face.

It is a total double standard.  Apparently you can screw anything on two legs if you are a man, and Hey!  No one will know but God.  But get pregenant and you are out the door!

It is unconstitutional and will lead to a major reform, long overdue.

This is the second story like this I've seen. I have no idea if she'll win her case or not, but find it very interesting that in both cases the women claimed that they were now pregnant and without income/livelihood, when they both married the men involved. So the father of the child, and husband of the woman, isn't going to support and care for her and the child?? Why do people sign things like this in the first place when they know they have no intention of "honoring" their word? 

In this economy they can hold crap like this over your head and you gotta take it because you need a job.  I hope she sues their behinds off.

What about all the men at the college messing around.  No one will ever know.  They are not the ones getting pregnant.  So it is a double standard.  But apparently men are immune from God's wrath here?  Oh wait, they can stay employed then burn in hell, right?

PS I think that this story is about a month old now.  Wondering when it would show up here. 

It absolutely should not be your employeers business if you have premaritial sex.  That's just crazy.  Get employeers out of the bedroom please.

Also, premaritial sex has absolutely nothing to do with religion and everything to do with a bunch old men telling everyone what they can or can not do.

 

I guess Mary should have been fired too, then right?  Oh wait...

Somewhat related...I once worked for a company that made women sign a statement stating they would return after maternity leave. The leave payment was about 60% of normal salary, but it was still something in a growing household, so all women signed. Who came back? About 50% of the women returned. Did the other 50% know they weren't telling the truth when they signed?

 

Who knows? Some new mothers did have infants with unexpected health problems, so no one in management ever forced the issue. BTW, the company is no longer in business.

Originally Posted by alwilliams767:

It absolutely should not be your employeers business if you have premaritial sex.  That's just crazy.  Get employeers out of the bedroom please.

Also, premaritial sex has absolutely nothing to do with religion and everything to do with a bunch old men telling everyone what they can or can not do.

 

I guess Mary should have been fired too, then right?  Oh wait...

 

Al, I've heard of companies declaring female employees' skirts were too LONG. Employers in right to work states can pretty well do what they want. Many non-religious institutions have a moral clause in their contracts. It's all about perception. If you agree to work for a company, you should be prepared to follow their policies as long as you know about them up front.

Al, the point isn't what the school should be able to tell their employees they can and can't do, the point is she signed the contract with no intention of living up to it. It's like women/men that sign a prenuptial agreement and want to cry/sue about it later. Would you sign a prenuptial agreement? Would you go ahead and marry someone that asked you to sign one? Would you sign a contract with anyone stating you wouldn't have premarital sex, or anything else that you do in your personal life? Maybe if you were going to work in a muslim country. It makes her look dishonest and a bit stupid for signing it and then wanting to sue when the school did exactly what they said they'd do. Crusty, the school is denying offering the job to her fiance.

 

The story may be a month old, but I just read it. I thought at first it was the same one I'd read a few months ago. In both cases the men were involved and around, and they married. Why didn't they get married before the pregnancies, or get married the moment they found out about the pregnancies and let the schools just assume what they wanted? Why did both women claim their ability to support themselves and the child had been taken away when the fathers are in the picture, they both claimed they were "engaged", and they did indeed marry? I'm an atheist and I still wonder about the mindset of a couple living together, getting pregnant, and still being calling themselves "engaged". 

As far as mary goes, well that was her story and she stuck to it. 

 

*****************************************************

Family Guy 2012 Christmas Episode

Joseph (Peter) asking Mary (Lois) about the immaculate conception

 

 

"So tell me one more time how it is that god got you pregnant, cause when you tell me the story it kinda makes sense, but when I tell the guys at work they poke all kinds of holes in it".

 

http://lezgetreal.com/2012/12/...as-episode-trailers/

OK, both of you have good points.  But what about the double standard?  Men can screw around all they and (and you know they are doing it too).  But they don's show the physical signs from sex like women do, they don't get pregnant.  This policy is blantant discrimination against women. 

And if I needed a job, like most unemployed people need jobs, I's sign whateve waiver they want in order to get paid.  And I'd work my butt off for my pay.  But when I go home, they have NO RIGHT to tell me what I am going to do in my bedroom, as long as it is legal. 

I mean if, I was a child ****ographer that would be different.  But having sex with the guy I am getting married to?  Give me a break.

She needs to thrash them publically.

Originally Posted by alwilliams767:

I suppose people said the same thing about Rosa Parks...

=============

You lost me. No idea what rosa parks has to do with it, unless she signed a contract promising no premarital sex. Seems to me she was the type that would have spoken up and refused to sign it, not the type to have signed it and then whined. Sorry, I am not going to equate this woman to rosa parks.

Originally Posted by alwilliams767:

This woman is fighting an ingrained system of injustice too.  Just like ol' Rosa did. 

============

No she isn't because she was fine with it until it came back on HER, and she is suing on her own behalf, no where did I see that she was working to change or "fight" an unjust system. A woman, signing a contract by her own free will, then not liking it when she is expected to live up to that contract, is nothing at all like rosa parks fighting for an entire race of people being forced to do things they don't agree to doing. Again, I will not equate this woman with parks.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×