RE: Cathy Samford Fired For Being Unwed Mother

This came across the feed today:

Sherry said, “When she was hired she was already pregnant and she did not disclose this to us.” When asked if it was ethical for an employer to terminate an employee for an act that took place prior to signing the contract with the school, Sherry said, “That was a decision made by the administration.” The contract she signed explains “15 or 19 times about the moral conduct. If she chose not to read it, that is her problem.”

via Cathy Samford Terminated for the “Act” That Caused Out-of-Wedlock Pregnancy.

Emphasis mine. I’m trying real hard to process this bit of information fairly but it would seem that the act of getting pregnant before she was even hired and before she signed a contract would fall outside the scope of her employment at the school. If they fire her for not living up to their contract prior to signing it, shouldn’t every single person at the school be fired too? Isn’t that a big part of Christianity; we’re all imperfect sinners and all that jazz?

How else can you view this other than they fired her for being an unwed mother? State and federal law is very clear: you can’t discriminant against women because of pregnancy.

You can read my initial post here, Cathy Samford Fired For Being Unwed Mother.

2 thoughts on “RE: Cathy Samford Fired For Being Unwed Mother”

  1. I’m not religious so their reasoning is moronic to me, but I do think they are well within their rights to fire and even want to fire her for this. The thing about employment contracts is that they are almost always a bad idea to sign unless you’re an upper level executive. Unless you have the potential to walk away with a huge corporate severance package, it’s almost always in you best interest to have a job where you don’t have to sign a contract like this for precisely the reasons we see in this case. If you’re a high profile “christian academy” in a place like Texas, you don’t want it getting around that a teacher at your school is someone who has kids out of wedlock. It’s an example of loose morals (from their perspective and the perspective of their customer base), and in order to stay relevant you have to practice what you preach and claim to teach.

    I also don’t believe they’re trying to circumvent discrimination against pregnancy laws by saying it was the act that they’re going after, since they really have no motivation for firing teachers who have families. It’s not a career where you’re discriminated against if you have children since, as the article describes, you’re likely to send your own children to the academy.

Leave a Reply