Christian school vs. non-Christian teachers: Little Oaks School in CA

[WESGATORS]

Does a private school not have the right to implement behavior standards for their employees; particularly when the standards are part of the curriculum?

Seems like a really bizarre fit that the two teachers would have a desire to teach at such a school.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Thousand-Oaks-Christian-School-Files-Religious-Liberty-Lawsuit-188773861.html

When the Godspeak Church bought Little Oaks Elementary in 2009, it started requiring employees to fill out questionnaires which asked whether they attended church, which church they attended and what the pastor had to say about their beliefs.

"We do believe their personal rights were violated," said the teachers' attorney, Dawn Coulson.

Coulson said Lynda Serrano and Mary Ellen Guevara received their questionnaires last summer. After they refused to fill out the form, they were not rehired. The teachers then filed paperwork saying they intended to sue.

The school’s attorney, Rick Kahdeman, said the church exercised its constitutional right to freedom of religion. He said that trumps any claim the teachers may have under state equal employment laws.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[QGator2414]

Absolutely ridiculous. What a waste of the court/taxpayers time and money...

[Dreamliner]

There are a lot of loony people out here.

[HALLGATOR]

While agreeing with the sentiment of "why would they want to work there" I also wonder if this will fall under the 64 Civil Rights Act.

[Dreamliner]

It is certainly true that ordinary people, working through the medium of government intermediaries, are working busily to erode the rights of others.

[WESGATORS]

I would think this would fall under the same allowable exception Disney is able to use by not having to hire a person of color to play the character of "Snow White."

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Dreamliner]

And here I'd like to seize the occasion to remind that liberal secularists said that stuff like this would never happen. They shushed us and shushed us and assured us that if we didn't mess with their stuff, they wouldn't mess with our stuff.

[helix139]

While agreeing with the sentiment of "why would they want to work there" I also wonder if this will fall under the 64 Civil Rights Act.

Well, they weren't terminated. They just weren't rehired, so the question will come down to whether or not religious views are a bona fide occupational qualification.

IMO, when a private Christian school is including religion in its curriculum, it's reasonable to require that teachers share and promote an acceptable religious stance/worldview. If religion isn't a part of the curriculum, then it is unreasonable.

But then again, if this ends up before the ninth circus all bets are off.

[wgbgator]

I'd say they are more like an employer in this case than a religious institution. But it seems like there is probably a way for them to get this information in a way more typical of other private employers. The first thing that comes to mind is requiring references from a religious leader upfront as part of your hiring practices, rather than requiring your current employees to inform their employer about activities outside work ex post facto.

[helix139]

I'd say they are more like an employer in this case than a religious institution. But it seems like there is probably a way for them to get this information in a way more typical of other private employers. The first thing that comes to mind is requiring references from a religious leader upfront as part of your hiring practices, rather than requiring your current employees to inform their employer about activities outside work ex post facto.

It sounds like the information was not required to stay employed under their current contract, but were required in order to be re-hired, as these teachers weren't terminated upon non-compliance. They just were not offered a new contract for the next year.

[QGator2414]

I'd say they are more like an employer in this case than a religious institution. But it seems like there is probably a way for them to get this information in a way more typical of other private employers. The first thing that comes to mind is requiring references from a religious leader upfront as part of your hiring practices, rather than requiring your current employees to inform their employer about activities outside work ex post facto.

This gets to what is wrong with our country.

Why should an employer have to follow any hiring practices?

Just saw Peter King get all upset about NFL owners already hiring their coaches. If you don't like how the NFL teams or a team hires go buy a team and incorporate what you feel are the proper ways to hire someone...

[wygator]

I noticed in the article that the church established the school as a "for profit" rather than as a religious or educational non-profit.

That could be the key issue here. If they had established as 501(c)3 religious educational organization, they'd have better protection.

The main problem is that they purchased a secular school and are turning it into a religious one, thus the conflict with teachers who likely would never have sought employment at a "Christian school".

[wgbgator]

This gets to what is wrong with our country.

Why should an employer have to follow any hiring practices?

Just saw Peter King get all upset about NFL owners already hiring their coaches. If you don't like how the NFL teams or a team hires go buy a team and incorporate what you feel are the proper ways to hire someone...

Personally, I think the mindset that only the gov't is capable of tyranny is what's wrong with this country. The same people who flip out about the census are the first people to defend a private employer from extracting any information he pleases from an employee.

[QGator2414]

Personally, I think the mindset that only the gov't is capable of tyranny is what's wrong with this country. The same people who flip out about the census are the first people to defend a private employer from extracting any information he pleases from an employee.

And is that employer forcing the employee to work for them?

[rivergator]

Don't know how the law sees it. But I'd side with the school on this one.

[wgbgator]

And is that employer forcing the employee to work for them?

Are you forced to live in this country?

[QGator2414]

Are you forced to live in this country?

Nope. And I prefer we keep freedom for both the employer and employee...

[QGator2414]

Well I suppose I would need permission from another country to enter so maybe I am.

Ironically the information I require from our employees is information required by government to be compliant with the government...

[wgbgator]

Nope. And I prefer we keep freedom for both the employer and employee...

Well, IMO the "freedom" to find another job isnt as desirable as the freedom to be free from excessive tyranny in the workplace. I would suspect that's a fairly popular view too.

[wgbgator]

Well I suppose I would need permission from another country to enter so maybe I am.
Ironically the information I require from our employees is information required by government to be compliant with the government...

And the same caveat doesnt apply WRT "find another job?"

[QGator2414]

Well, IMO the "freedom" to find another job isnt as desirable as the freedom to be free from excessive tyranny in the workplace. I would suspect that's a fairly popular view too.

SMH

If you have excessive tyranny in the workplace...LEAVE!

The employer will go out of business without workers if they are so awful...

[QGator2414]

And the same caveat doesnt apply WRT "find another job?"

Not if we are a free country. You can be your own employer.

Go buy a lawn mower and off one goes for example! :whoa:

[QGator2414]

The only tyranny happening is from governments (ours included)

[wgbgator]

The only tyranny happening is from governments (ours included)

Myopia.

[WESGATORS]

Can we at least agree that there's a big difference between "if you don't like it leave the country" and "if you don't like it, teach at a different school?"

The principle that is troubling here is that the teaching institution is being (potentially) handicapped in their ability to bring in experts at what they want to teach; or even worse, to be obligated to bring in people that are simply not conveying what it is that they want to teach. It would be like hiring a math teacher that is not proficient in math; or at least one that would refuse to acknowledge their adequacy at being able to teach math.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wgbgator]

Can we at least agree that there's a big difference between "if you don't like it leave the country" and "if you don't like it, teach at a different school?"

The principle that is troubling here is that the teaching institution is being (potentially) handicapped in their ability to bring in experts at what they want to teach; or even worse, to be obligated to bring in people that are simply not conveying what it is that they want to teach. It would be like hiring a math teacher that is not proficient in math; or at least one that would refuse to acknowledge their adequacy at being able to teach math.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Sure, finding a new country is probably a bit more of a hoop to jump through than a new job, but if you're willing to add a "yeah, but" to any of those situations, then you're allowing the defense that simply having the hypothetical ability to move on isnt necessarily a position of "freedom" and doesnt necessarily excuse or prevent tyranny from occuring. That's my point.

[WESGATORS]

Sure, finding a new country is probably a bit more of a hoop to jump through than a new job, but if you're willing to add a "yeah, but" to any of those situations, then you're allowing the defense that simply having the hypothetical ability to move on isnt necessarily a position of "freedom" and doesnt necessarily excuse or prevent tyranny from occuring. That's my point.

I don't think it's as binary as you make it. Plus your country is obligated to your well-being whereas a prospective employer is not. I don't see how a reasonable person could possibly apply the term "tyranny" to the Little Oaks School. But if we must declare it, yes, the option to leave the country is still a freedom that we enjoy. But having that freedom is not a justification to remove other freedoms that we are entitled to.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Dreamliner]

Are you forced to live in this country?

Love it or leave it!*

*cue Lee Greenwood

[wgbgator]

I don't think it's as binary as you make it. Plus your country is obligated to your well-being whereas a prospective employer is not. I don't see how a reasonable person could possibly apply the term "tyranny" to the Little Oaks School. But if we must declare it, yes, the option to leave the country is still a freedom that we enjoy. But having that freedom is not a justification to remove other freedoms that we are entitled to.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I don't think my argument was too binary. I just said that having the ability to "leave" wasnt necessarily a position of freedom or a safeguard against tyranny. That doesnt seem unreasonable, given the lack of absolutes in my statement.

Also, I think you're allowing a bit more leeway to a religious employer here than you would a nominally secular one. I assume you would find that a non-religious employer demanding pretty detailed reports of outside activities and relationships as a condition of continued employment a bit of a reach, right?

As for the term "tyranny" there's really no objective criteria on what that constitutes. For some the ACA is tyrannical, or a ban on assault rifles. I could substitute a "bad faith abuse of power" instead, but tyranny is more economical.

[QGator2414]

Myopia.

??? After you throw out the leave this country line?

Do you feel you are being treated poorly by your employer right now or something?

Are you forced to work for an employer? Are you capable of providing a service in exchange for money on your own (clean a house, mow a lawn etc etc etc)?

Are you required to work as an agent of the state as an employer?

Finally...Where is the tyrannical relationship?

[QGator2414]

I don't think my argument was too binary. I just said that having the ability to "leave" wasnt necessarily a position of freedom or a safeguard against tyranny. That doesnt seem unreasonable, given the lack of absolutes in my statement.

Also, I think you're allowing a bit more leeway to a religious employer here than you would a nominally secular one. I assume you would find that a non-religious employer demanding pretty detailed reports of outside activities and relationships as a condition of continued employment a bit of a reach, right?

Why? What if an employer wants to espouse a Christian, Muslim, Athiest etc viewpoint and feels an employee is not the proper fit for the vision of the business. Yes this is an abnormal situation but why should an employer be forced to keep an employee that does not fit it's direction?

[wgbgator]

??? After you throw out the leave this country line?

Do you feel you are being treated poorly by your employer right now or something?

Are you forced to work for an employer? Are you capable of providing a service in exchange for money on your own (clean a house, mow a lawn etc etc etc)?

Are you required to work as an agent of the state as an employer?

Finally...Where is the tyrannical relationship?

I was just deconstructing your argument by comparing its logic to that to another oft used one. I didnt say you should leave the county. It was you who said only the government was tyrannical, so its seems perfectly fair to compare the same argument about having the theoretical ability to leave a country to the same defense you give for potential abuses of power by employers.

[wgbgator]

Why? What if an employer wants to espouse a Christian, Muslim, Athiest etc viewpoint and feels an employee is not the proper fit for the vision of the business. Yes this is an abnormal situation but why should an employer be forced to keep an employee that does not fit it's direction?

I totally agree with the premise involved here, employers have an interest in finding employees that are good fits to their culture. The question to me is, how much leeway and intrusion into someone's privacy and personal relationships are you willing to grant an employer to determine this?

[QGator2414]

I was just deconstructing your argument by comparing its logic to that to another oft used one. I didnt say you should leave the county. It was you who said only the government was tyrannical, so its seems perfectly fair to compare the same argument about having the theoretical ability to leave a country to the same defense you give for potential abuses of power by employers.

I suppose it was a solid straw man...

[WESGATORS]

Also, I think you're allowing a bit more leeway to a religious employer here than you would a nominally secular one. I assume you would find that a non-religious employer demanding pretty detailed reports of outside activities and relationships as a condition of continued employment a bit of a reach, right?

No.

As for the term "tyranny" there's really no objective criteria on what that constitutes. For some the ACA is tyrannical, or a ban on assault rifles. I could substitute a "bad faith abuse of power" instead, but tyranny is more economical.

The term tyranny implies an inescapable abuse of power. It originally applied to being subject to a ruler with no reasonable alternative. Still, I think it's worth noting that having to escape a country because of its abuse of power would be considered along the lines of insufficiently restricting freedoms.

But morally speaking, what freedoms do you think the school is violating here? Do you think they should be entitled to confirm a sufficient Christian foundation in their instructors?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[QGator2414]

I totally agree with the premise involved here, employers have an interest in finding employees that are good fits to their culture. The question to me is, how much leeway and intrusion into someone's privacy and personal relationships are you willing to grant an employer to determine this?

As much as they want. Just like the employee should have as much leeway as they want to say screw you (I would not say that to my employer if I liked my job but might politely say...I do not understand why you need that information. Is there something I need to know or be trained on to better help the business?).

If the employer feels they need more (abnormal situation) then the employee should have no issues finding a job in a normal situation assuming their skills are valued and move on...I have a hard time believing an employer is going to be successful firing good labor and spending the resources necessary to train new labor over and over by asking these supposed questions...

[QGator2414]

No.



The term tyranny implies an inescapable abuse of power. It originally applied to being subject to a ruler with no reasonable alternative. Still, I think it's worth noting that having to escape a country because of its abuse of power would be considered along the lines of insufficiently restricting freedoms.

But morally speaking, what freedoms do you think the school is violating here? Do you think they should be entitled to confirm a sufficient Christian foundation in their instructors?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Yep

[wgbgator]

As much as they want. Just like the employee should have as much leeway as they want to say screw you (I would not say that to my employer if I liked my job but might politely say...I do not understand why you need that information. Is there something I need to know or be trained on to better help the business?).

If the employer feels they need more (abnormal situation) then the employee should have no issues finding a job in a normal situation assuming their skills are valued and move on...I have a hard time believing an employer is going to be successful firing good labor and spending the resources necessary to train new labor over and over by asking these supposed questions...

And I say it can be limited by the democratic process. We have the right to protect ourselves from what we deem as overreaches of private power, because, as you say, they are apparently entitled to as much as they want and can leverage out of us. The democratic process is our best defense, as we don't have a Constitution protecting us from abuses of private power.

[wgbgator]

No.



The term tyranny implies an inescapable abuse of power. It originally applied to being subject to a ruler with no reasonable alternative. Still, I think it's worth noting that having to escape a country because of its abuse of power would be considered along the lines of insufficiently restricting freedoms.

But morally speaking, what freedoms do you think the school is violating here? Do you think they should be entitled to confirm a sufficient Christian foundation in their instructors?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

As I mentioned before, my objection isnt into the intent of hiring that fits the culture, but the means to extract this information. Are there limits to what employers can do to glean this information?

[bluelang]

There's this little thing called the Constitution that guarantees equality.

If this were an secular school refusing to hire Christian teachers the board would be all over it.

[bluelang]

As I mentioned before, my objection isnt into the intent of hiring that fits the culture, but the means to extract this information. Are there limits to what employers can do to glean this information?

Absolutely. You can't ask an employee much of anything that isn't directly related to the work to be done. And since this is ostensibly a school, not a church, the work being done is "teaching," not "preaching."

I hire a lot of people, and I can't ask them their sex, age, nationality, etc - even conversationally. I sure as hell can't ask them their belief system.

[bluelang]

If the employer feels they need more (abnormal situation) then the employee should have no issues finding a job in a normal situation assuming their skills are valued and move on

This has nothing to do with their SKILLS, it has to do with their BELIEFS. It is illegal to discriminate on basis of religion in all fifty states of our great union, and has been for decades.

[WESGATORS]

This has nothing to do with their SKILLS, it has to do with their BELIEFS.

If a child asks the teacher, "is God real?" What would you expect an atheist teacher at this school to respond with?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[bluelang]

If a child asks the teacher, "is God real?" What would you expect an atheist teacher at this school to respond with?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Whatever the curriculum states. That's the point at which the teacher themselves have to make the decision about whether or not they're in the right job.

Anyways, it's not up to me, you, the employer or anyone else's opinion. It's in the constitution, it's settled law, and in 40 years when Christians are a minority in the USA you'll all appreciate it a lot more. It is there to protect all Americans (and anyone working in America) equally.

[WESGATORS]

Absolutely. You can't ask an employee much of anything that isn't directly related to the work to be done. And since this is ostensibly a school, not a church, the work being done is "teaching," not "preaching."

But it is related to the work to be done. From the school's website (http://www.littleoaksschool.net/#/about-us):

Part of its expressed purpose of existence...

...and cherishing timeless Christian principles in its methods.

Further down they elaborate...

Our philosophy at Little Oaks recognizes that all wisdom comes from God; “Fear [deep reverence and respect] of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Prov 1:7. In addition, we know that children benefit from a warm, supportive environment that provides stimulating, Godly experiences that are planned to meet age appropriate developmental and educational needs. We provide instruction; stimulate exploration, and monitor/provide feedback regarding their developing skills in an environment that reinforces personal responsibility, positive reinforcement, and Godly Love.

I don't know how one could possibly assume that one's religion isn't "directly related to the work to be done" in this case. Sometimes I think you atheists fear God more than us Christians do.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

Anyways, it's not up to me, you, the employer or anyone else's opinion. It's in the constitution, it's settled law, and in 40 years when Christians are a minority in the USA you'll all appreciate it a lot more. It is there to protect all Americans (and anyone working in America) equally.

And what part of the Constitution is in violation here?

For what it's worth (and I mentioned this earlier), I'd feel the same way about a Muslim school or about an Atheist school; so I do believe in equality; I just also believe in leaving people alone in their own business so long as they are violating the rights of others.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[bluelang]

And what part of the Constitution is in violation here?

For what it's worth (and I mentioned this earlier), I'd feel the same way about a Muslim school or about an Atheist school; so I do believe in equality; I just also believe in leaving people alone in their own business so long as they are violating the rights of others.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

It's pretty well established that you and I don't agree on these things and that you won't bother to do any research to understand them, so I think we'll just call this one finished.

[helix139]

Whatever the curriculum states. That's the point at which the teacher themselves have to make the decision about whether or not they're in the right job.

Anyways, it's not up to me, you, the employer or anyone else's opinion. It's in the constitution, it's settled law, and in 40 years when Christians are a minority in the USA you'll all appreciate it a lot more. It is there to protect all Americans (and anyone working in America) equally.

Settled law allows discrimination on the basis of religion when it is a bona fide occupational qualification. It seems in this case it is based on the aims and objectives of the school.

[WESGATORS]

It's pretty well established that you and I don't agree on these things and that you won't bother to do any research to understand them, so I think we'll just call this one finished.

I recall the discussion about the school prayer at the public school, but I do not recall any of the other discussions on this type of matter. This is a different issue since it involves a private school. You brought a point up that I felt did not apply, and I expressed why. You brought up a reference to the Constitution, and I asked which part you were referring to. You don't have to respond, obviously, but I'm interested in your input because it is different than what I would have expected. That I might have more questions or challenges for you only means that I am interested in what you have to say. If we end up disagreeing again, so be it, but this will have been an entirely different subject than what I recall having discussed with you previously. I'd also be interested in AzCat's, Row's, 108's, and Thedyc09's (sp?) take (among other atheists).

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[bluelang]

There are hundreds and hundreds of repeats of the same info under a google search for "illegal interview questions," but here's a summary:

http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com/employment-discrimination/Discrimination-in-a-Job-Interview.html

And here's the web page from the govmnt itself:

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

You guys all complaining about this crap are the worst. These laws PROTECT YOU. Just because your sensitive little religious ego got bruised in this one stupid case suddenly you want to throw away all constitutional protections for equality in the workplace. Completely and utterly stupid, short-sighted, and embarrassing.

[bluelang]

The school actually could have gotten off the hook if they were operating as a non-profit church rather than as a for-profit school, and if they required all teachers to be ordained ministers:

http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=136532

[WESGATORS]

There are hundreds and hundreds of repeats of the same info under a google search for "illegal interview questions," but here's a summary:

http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com/employment-discrimination/Discrimination-in-a-Job-Interview.html

And here's the web page from the govmnt itself:

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

You guys all complaining about this crap are the worst. These laws PROTECT YOU. Just because your sensitive little religious ego got bruised in this one stupid case suddenly you want to throw away all constitutional protections for equality in the workplace. Completely and utterly stupid, short-sighted, and embarrassing.

With all due respect, you are incorrect, please note the section on exceptions for Title VII:


link to EEOC.gov compliance manual Section 12 (Religious Discrimination) (http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_Toc203359494)

C. Exceptions
1. Religious Organizations

Under Title VII, religious organizations are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion.[42] The exception applies only to those institutions whose “purpose and character are primarily religious.”[43] That determination is to be based on “[a]ll significant religious and secular characteristics.”[44] Although no one factor is dispositive, significant factors to consider that would indicate whether an entity is religious include:

Do its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose?
Are its day-to-day operations religious (e.g., are the services the entity performs, the product it produces, or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion)?
Is it not-for-profit?
Is it affiliated with or supported by a church or other religious organization? [45]

This exception is not limited to religious activities of the organization.[46] However, it only allows religious organizations to prefer to employ individuals who share their religion.[47] The exception does not allow religious organizations otherwise to discriminate in employment on protected bases other than religion, such as race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability.[48] Thus, a religious organization is not permitted to engage in racially discriminatory hiring by asserting that a tenet of its religious beliefs is not associating with people of other races. Similarly, a religious organization is not permitted to deny fringe benefits to married women but not to married men by asserting a religiously based view that only men can be the head of a household.

But just for kicks. Please tell me how your interpretation of the law would possibly offer me any protection of my rights if I already believe that an entity has the right to discriminate against me and my religious beliefs? Your accusation doesn't make any sense.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[QGator2414]

And I say it can be limited by the democratic process. We have the right to protect ourselves from what we deem as overreaches of private power, because, as you say, they are apparently entitled to as much as they want and can leverage out of us. The democratic process is our best defense, as we don't have a Constitution protecting us from abuses of private power.

What abuses of private power? If no employees will work for a free abusive employer then liberty and freedom will take care of that abusive power when the employer has no employees...

I guess tyranny is okay if it benefits you?

[QGator2414]

This has nothing to do with their SKILLS, it has to do with their BELIEFS. It is illegal to discriminate on basis of religion in all fifty states of our great union, and has been for decades.

And if you can prove discrimination you will win.

If an employer lets a person go go properly it will be an impossible law suit...