Judge rejects diocese's bid to set aside in vitro verdict
Source: Associated Press
Judge rejects diocese's bid to set aside in vitro verdict
| March 10, 2015
FORT WAYNE, Ind. (AP) — A jury was correct in finding that a Roman Catholic diocese discriminated against a former teacher by firing her for undergoing fertilization treatment, a federal judge has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Robert Miller said in Monday's ruling that "the evidence supports" December's verdict favoring former diocese teacher Emily Herx, The Journal Gazette reported (http://bit.ly/1Hu1neQ ).
The jury found that the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend violated Herx's civil rights when it declined to renew her contract in June 2011 because she underwent in vitro fertilization in hopes of having a second child. Jurors awarded Herx $1.9 million, but Miller later reduced that to about $540,000.
Attorneys for the diocese filed a motion in January, asking Miller to rule in their favor.
According to the diocese, the Catholic Church says the medical procedure — which involves mixing eggs and sperm and transferring the resulting embryo into the womb — is an intrinsic evil that no circumstances can justify.
Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Judge-rejects-diocese-s-bid-to-set-aside-in-vitro-6125462.php
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
perdita9
(1,144 posts)From abusing children to incarcerating pregnant women in sweat shops to promoting hatred against gay people,
I consider the Catholic church to be the ultimate authority on evil
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)and they think in-vitro fertilization is evil, then they must be correct...
Perhaps you simply meant they are the ultimate evil? They have certainly commited a lot of evil, hateful and discriminatory acts and I am glad the judge ruled against them. I hope the ruling holds along the chain of appeals.
perdita9
(1,144 posts)Denying female employees equal access to medical treatment is evil.
Sorry if I wasn't clear about the kind of evil the Catholic church is capable of, but their actions cover a lot of ground.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 10, 2015, 09:54 PM - Edit history (1)
This teacher was NOT denied any medical procedure, but was told by her Employer, the Catholic Church, that as a Law Teacher for the Catholic Church if she under went that procedure she could no longer be a teacher for the Catholic Diocese.
This filing is required under the Federal Rules of Appellate procedure before you can file an appeal. The issue of appeal will be is it permitted for employers to forbid female employee to go through a medical procedure that the employer as a Religious organization that for Religious reasons objects to that procedure?
We have a direct First Amendment issue here, can the Federal Government make illegal a for a religious organization to fire someone who violated a tenet of that religion? When it is clear what those rules were for it was in the written contract of employment? The Peyote case will come into play as will Congress's response to that case. The recent Hobby Lobby Decision is another factor in this case.
In simple terms, this will be appealed and the courts will have to rule based on the facts founded by the Jury.
The Hobby Lobby Actual Court Decision:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
The Peyote Case, "Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (No. 88-1213), 1990":
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - 390 U.S. 400 (1968):
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/400/case.html
jmowreader
(50,552 posts)but a "tenement" is run-down housing, and "tenet" is a religious doctrine.
perdita9
(1,144 posts)The employer's opinion on it is irrelevant.
Or would you like a Jehovah's Witness to fire his employees for getting a blood transfusion. What about a Jewish employer firing people for eating bacon?
marshall
(6,665 posts)I get your point, but I think you are confusing an individual and an institution. An individual employer firing a woman for having IVF is not the issue. In all likelihood a person working at a university owned by the Jehovah's Witness church and operated under its tenets would be in danger of being fired for having a blood transfusion. Just as people have been fired from Mormon run BYU for committing adultery.
However I would want to see the exact contract under which she was hired, and other material that is made available to employees.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)If she had been a Janitor, not an issue, but in this case we are talking about a Teacher, which the Supreme Court has adopted the position that there is a "Minister Exception" for Civil Rights Laws, for if such exception did NOT exist, the Civil Rights Law would violate the First Amendment when it came to Religious Freedom, which includes the right to pick one's own ministers:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf
It is true that her religious duties consumed only 45 minutes of each workday, and that the rest of her day was devoted to teaching secular subjects......
The heads of congregations themselves often have a mix of duties, including secular ones such as helping to manage the congregation’s finances, supervising purely secular personnel, and overseeing the upkeep of facilities......
The issue before us, however, is not one that can be resolved by a stopwatch. The amount of time an employee spends on particular activities is relevant in assessing that employee’s status, but that factor cannot be considered in isolation, without regard to the nature of the religious functions performed and the other considerations discussed above.
The case before us is an employment discrimination suit brought on behalf of a minister, challenging her church’s decision to fire her. Today we hold only that the ministerial exception bars such a suit.
In the above case the "Minster" was a teacher in a Lutheran School. That School employed two types of teachers, "Called" Teachers and "Lay" Teachers. Both had to meet the requirement of having a degree in teaching but the "Called" Teachers also had to have a background in Religion and be accepted by the parish as "Called" to the profession of teaching. The teacher involved became sick and was terminated after she was unable to perform her duties but when she recovered NOT hired do to fears that she might become sick again (and her position had been filled by a lay teacher).
The Court did not rule on the Lay Teachers being except from Discrimination laws but the difference between the two are minor, eight classes of religion. Thus is this ruling applicable to this case? Are the Lay Teachers also "Minsters" within this judge made exception to the Civil RIghts Acts?
Thus your exceptions are NOT want the courts are interested in. If a PREACHER of Jehovah Witnesses gets a blood transfusion, if a Rabbi eats a Bacon Sandwich, and their congregations FIRES THEM, then the above Minster exceptions kicks in. If it is the Janitor to the both places, then the Minister Exception do NOT kick in.
The problem is where do Lay Teachers go in the above split? Are their Minster like the "Called" Teacher in the above case or are their like Janitors who have NO position within the "leadership" of the Religion? In many ways that is a question of Fact AND Law. Juries decides issues of Fact and as such NOT appealable, but issues of law are reserved to Judges and are appealable. Facts are what the Teacher did and was expected to do, law is do those facts make the teacher a "leader" of her church or a mere member? That is the question of Law in this case and will be appealed.
perdita9
(1,144 posts)And if health coverage was part of the benefits package, she should have been able to access it without condemnation from her employer.
The legal activities you do in your private life should be none of your employer's business. This was a legal medical procedure.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Think about it. This is the ministerial exception. It is the same rule that applies to any similar groups, including gay rights groups. Based on your position if the head of a Gay Rights Group decides in his off hours, to gives speeches calling for gays to be killed, the Gay Right Group can NOT fire him for it was an off hour speech?
I do not know of ANY group that will tolerate someone in a leadership position who then in his or her's off hours does actions that the group OPPOSES. This is true of Gay Rights Groups, Civil Rights Groups, Veteran Groups, in addition to Political Groups (Would Democrats be forced to keep as head of the Democratic Party, someone who advocates abolishing the Democratic Party and all it stand for?).
This is the exception we are talking about, not someone who is a mere Employee, but someone in a leadership position. Not a mere member but someone others in the group are looking to as a leader. Such a position is in clear opposition to the WHOLE INTENT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
'http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html#sthash.L0Pp4iI0.dpuf
The "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.....or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" includes the right to form up behind leaders. And thus the group has the right to select the leaders they want and deselect them as they please. If an act of Congress does interfere with HOW a religion (or any political group) is organized is a violation of the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL. To get around that problem the Ministerial Exception was invented. If someone is in a leadership position in a religious organization (or a political organization) that person can be FIRED by that organization even if it would be illegal to fire that person under any law passed by Congress. Other then that Congress would give the Courts and the Executive the power to destroy any religion (or other group) that the Courts and the Executive do not like.
Side Note: The Supreme Court has long taken notice that "Religion" is broader then a belief in God. Thus Women Rights Groups, Civil Rights Groups and other groups have used the First Amendment Religious wording to prevent government control over them. You do NOT need to believe in God to meet the definition of "Religion" used by the Courts, all you have to be someone with a strong set of beliefs (Anti-Slavery groups used this test prior to the Civil War, they failed for the Supreme Court noted the Bill of Rights only applied to Congress, the States did NOT come under the Federal Bill of Rights till the passage of the Post Civil War Amendments, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments). Since the adoption of the Post Civil War Amendments the Bill of Rights have been slowly applied to the States. Thus today, the definition of Religion as used in the First Amendment has more of a mid 1800 feel then a 1790 feel, for it was the States that were more likely to violate the Bill of Rights not the Federal Government.
perdita9
(1,144 posts)Your debate makes no sense.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The Ministerial exception means that ANYONE in a LEADERSHIP position can be FIRED for any reason or no reason including doing something OFF HOURS. When such Termination occurred, be it a speech or undertaking a medical procedure the group she is a leader of disapproves of, does NOT matter, what matters is it was an action AGAINST the wishes of her group.
Thus she can be fired and that termination can NOT be challenged as violating any Civil Rights Act, for to do so would be to interfere with the practice of a Religion and thus VIOLATE the First Amendment. Congress can NOT pass a law that interferes with Religion and to tell a Church that its LEADERS can NOT be fired for doing something that is LEGAL but OPPOSED BY THAT RELIGION, would be a violation of the First Amendment.
In this case the Jury appears to have found as a Factual finding that she was NOT in a Leadership position, but that remains an open question as a Matter of Law. If the teacher was a Janitor, it is clear she could NOT be terminated, but she is a "Lay Teacher" and that position can be construed to be in a LEADERSHIP position within that Church and if that is the Case, the law is clear, she can be terminated for violating the Church's rules.
Now the Trial Judge rules her position was more like a Janitor then a Leader of the Church, but that legal ruling will be challenged on appeal. I am just pointing out what the Argument will be, not that I agree with it but explaining why this is a case to watch.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Thus the Catholic Church oppose abortion AND oppose such fertilization treatment. There are consistent in that matter.
As to the Irish laundries, unless ORDERED INTO THE LAUNDRIES BY AN IRISH COURT, the women in those laundries had to right to leave at any time. Many did. Other stayed for years. How do you take care of women who have no place to go AND pay for such a place? That was the situation of MOST of the women in the Laundries and why the Laundries existed. The laundries provided the income to maintain the women in the laundries. No one wanted to pay taxes so that is how Ireland handle those situation.
Report on the Laundries:
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/MagdalenRpt2013
Discussion thread on DU from 2013 on those Laundries:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014390691#post56
Just a comment that, while the Catholic Church has done some evil in the world, a lot of what people accuse it of doing did not occur, or if it did occur was no where as bad is it is often portrayed.
perdita9
(1,144 posts)Does the Catholic Church have the right to fire their employees for seeking chemotherapy or a stent?
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Thus if a fetus is aborted naturally, that occurs and is thus natural. If a woman doing what women do normally ends up aborting a fetus, that is OK by the Catholic Church (Many years ago I read a story about Sophia Loren, whenever she became pregnant any activity on her part would cause her to abort. To have a child she had to stay in bed for the entire nine months of pregnancy. To have a child she then stayed in bed for nine months. The Catholic Church does NOT require such actions, She would still be considered within the doctrine of the Catholic Church if she took a walk knowing that would cause an abortion for it was a NATURAL ACT. I do NOT know if the story of Sophia Loren is true, I am just repeating it to show the position of the Catholic Church on Abortion.
On the other hand the Catholic Church dislikes any ARTIFICIAL ways of abortion. This position forces them to rule that any ways to create a Human Being has to be Natural, thus the Catholic Position of in vitro fertilization. The first position (Artificial Abortion is bad, natural abortion is good) puts you into the second position (Natural fertilization is good, Artificial fertilization is bad). You may disagree with those position, but they do flow together.
Now, this position was adopted by the Catholic Church do to pressure from the Medical Community in the mid 1800s. Prior to 1869 the Catholic Position was that abortions were bad, but NOT a mortal sin unless the Fetus had "Quickened", i.e. it is last three months of the Pregnancy. The Pre-1869 Catholic Position on Abortion can be seen in Roe vs Wade and its how its treats the three Trimester of a Pregnancy. It had been the rule in Ancient Judea and in Ancient Greece. St Augustine said it was the rule for Christians. The English Judges adopted it as part of the Common Law for when the Common Law was being made, it was the rule in the Catholic Church that dominated Dark Ages and the Middle ages.
In 1869 the Catholic Church adopted its present rule. This was pushed by the Medical Establishment on the grounds that Quickening was NOT the event that it had been assumed to be till then (i.e. the time period when the Fetus could survive outside the womb). Quickening was just when the fetus became large enough for its movements to be felt in the womb, not what had been assumed since ancient times, the evidence that the fetus could surive outside the womb.
Side note: Modern Science can fertilize an ovum outside the womb. Modern Science can keep a premature baby born in the final trimester alive. The problem is modern science can NOT do what the womb can do between those two events. Thus the Ancients were NOT that far off when it came to a Fetus surviving outside the womb.
Back to the Doctors of the 1860s. Abortions had been within the domain of midwives for Centuries. Doctors did NOT do births or abortions. Midwives were all women and the male Medical establishment always resented them. With the improvements in understanding how a Fetus developed the Medical Establishment decided it was time to take over births and abortions.
Side Note: The modern tradition of Doctors going for 8 years of training is only from the late 1800s. Even as late as the US Civil War, Medical Training lasted only one year. Given this situation, the Mid-wives were probably the better choice when it came to births and abortions for they had more training in both for Mid-Wives were trained by older mid-wives like an Apprentice to any Master.
Thus increase knowledge of Fetus development (and the event of European Medical Schools actually started to expand their medical programs for more then one year) lead to the Medical establishment pushing for abortions and births be restricted to Doctors not mid wives. The fact that Quickening was NOT the single event it had assumed to be was used to show the old rules did not meet modern medical knowledge. The Governments of Europe and the US and the Churches, both Protestant and Catholic deferred to the Medical establishment on this issue. The problem for the Catholic Church became, when does a Fetus become a Human Being? Birth had been rejected in the days of the Roman Empire, replaced by quickening. In the 1800s quickening was under attack as NOT being a single event but just a continuous of gradual growth since the Ovum was fertilized. Thus to the Catholic Church Fertilization became the point when a Fetus became a Human. That it later became know that many women do spontaneous abortions became known force the Catholic Church to adjust their doctrine to accept such abortion on the grounds they were natural, just as if a Fetus is born dead.
Notice this line of logic. A human is created when an Ovum is fertilized. If the resulting fetus is aborted naturally that is how God intended it to be. On the other hand if the Fetus is ARTIFICI ABORTED, the abortion is the MURDER OF A HUMAN BEING and thus a Mortal Sin for you would be KILLING another Human being.
Every so often a group within the Catholic Church advocates going back to the pre-1869 rules on the grounds that 21st century science is still seeing the growth of the fetus as a gradual growth BUT is also slowly accepting that the ancient had it right when it came to seeing the Fetus as a Human Being i.e. when it could survive outside the womb (and the 1800s Doctors were crack pots more worried about their practice then helping their fellow human beings).
Thus chemotherapy or a stent is NOT an issue for the Catholic Church for it is NOT affecting another Human being. Artificial Fertilization is creating new Human Beings and do we want that to be done? Before you say, yes, that also includes the right to end another human's life i.e. abortion, for the power to create is also the power to destroy. You may not want to connect these two positions but the Catholic Church has and that is the problem in this case. Does going against Catholic Doctrine WHILE A CATHOLIC TEACHER grounds for termination of Employment by the Catholic Church?
Thus we get back to the original issue, the termination of Employment of this Teacher. Which "right" is superior, her right to obtain such treatment or her Employer's right NOT to employ someone who exercise a legal right they object to? Must the Catholic Church retain a teacher who violated a doctrine of the Catholic Church? In some way this is like saying a known advocate of the KKK must be retained by the NAACP as a doorman since he was a doorman of the NAACP before it became known he was an advocate of the KKK, or a gay rights organization being forced to keep as its speaker someone who now attacks homosexuality as sin, for the Gay rights group had employed that speaker as its speaker in previous years?
This will be an interesting case on appeal, to see how the courts what to address the issue of woman's rights to medical treatment and Religious Freedom.
