Anybody have any comments on this?

[3113]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101

And, let's face it: If she had been noticeably pregnant and unmarried or very recently married, it would bring scorn and derision on the college for having an "immoral" teacher.

You mean, as compared to now when, thanks to this firing, their name is all over the internet and they're being taken to task for firing a woman who had sex out of wedlock while hiring the man who made her pregnant out of wedlock?

Yeah. They sure saved themselves scorn and derision.

[carlieplum]

It's like what they say when people bitch about what happens to you when you are a Marine. You know what USMC stands for? "You Signed the Mother-fucking Contract."

She's got no leg to stand on.

And she got Gloria Aldred. Not the same as getting a real lawyer. More like getting a PR agent.

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by jomar

School fired a woman for having premarital sex then hired a man they knew had premarital sex. That it was her fiance is icing on the cake. PC shit has nothing to do with it.

This is what they call a fact, as opposed to a true fact. They fired her because she violated the terms of their employment contract. As far as they are concerned, that's the end of the story.

And, let's face it, having an unwed pregnant woman on the teaching staff would certainly make the college a laughing stock, at least among those who cared about such things. I don't, and I doubt anybody on this forum does either, but there would be some who would take it seriously and sent their children elsewhere to continue their education.

As for hiring the man that is rather weird but, at least, he is not going to become pregnant and he had no employment contract that could have been broken.

[jomar]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101

This is what they call a fact, as opposed to a true fact. They fired her because she violated the terms of their employment contract. As far as they are concerned, that's the end of the story.

I got no problem with that.

And, let's face it, having an unwed pregnant woman on the teaching staff would certainly make the college a laughing stock, at least smong those who cared about such things. I don't, and I doubt anybody on this forum does either, but there would be some who would take it seriously and sent their children elsewhere to continue their education.

They are already a laughing stock as a result of this mess.

As for hiring the manm that is rather weird but, at least, he is not going to become pregnant and he had no employment contract that could have been broken.

This is where they bought the lawsuit assuming facts are as stated. You are correct that he did not violate a contract by having premarital sex, but the school stepped in some pretty deep shit by hiring him knowing he had after just firing her for the same thing.

[PennLady]

Originally Posted by jomar

This is where they bought the lawsuit assuming facts are as stated. You are correct that he did not violate a contract by having premarital sex, but the school stepped in some pretty deep shit by hiring him knowing he had after just firing her for the same thing.

This is what I think made them look foolish more than anything else. It displays a laughable and seriously old-fashioned double standard (not that they are the only ones who would believe it).

I tried to find more about this today, and didn't find much, just other articles with the same info. However, all of them say that she "claimed" or "alleged" that the school offered the fiance the job. I still haven't seen that corroborated anywhere. While I don't doubt it could be true, it may not be. Although why she'd say it if it wasn't, and why the school wouldn't deny it if they hadn't, I don't know.