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/lo...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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

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]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

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]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

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

Are you forced to live in this country?

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

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]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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