r/TwoHotTakes 6d ago

Update: My supervisor met my boyfriend and now she wants an HR meeting Listener Write In

[removed]

18.8k Upvotes

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.4k

u/thedudeabidezzzz 6d ago edited 6d ago

Lawyer up!

They already said staff couldn’t be associated with someone engaging in those activities. That means you.

They will be looking for any excuse possible to fire you in the coming days/weeks. Get setup for a payday bc it’s private school not public. They will pay whatever it takes to not have it tarnish their image. But will try to bully you out w/o a lawyer on your side

Edit: OP please call out sick tomorrow and meet with an employment attorney. It’s for your own good and better to have setup and not need it than to not have it and need it.

745

u/friendly-sam 6d ago

If it's a Church owned school, then they can be as hateful as they want. If it's public school then lawyering up would be a good idea. Also, the ACLU may be interested in helping out if it's public school since it appears you are being punished by association.

In addition, ask for the employee handbook that outlines the offense. If they don't have it written down, then it's a legal issue, even for a Church.

174

u/Quirky-Employee3719 6d ago

As maddening as this is, it is true. I hate that it's true. OP you are going to get sooooo much incorrect advice from people who don't know the reality of working for a religion ran school. I am sorry to predict. With a teacher shortage do you really have no other options? I believe it is entirely possible that they will run you out by nit picking every little thing. My advice get out ASAP. It doesn't matter how great the kids and parents are. You have no rights here. Find work in a union school if you can It's infuriating!

107

u/Bellowery 6d ago

Step 1: Leave the church.

Step 2: Join a union.

This is sound advice for many people.

0

u/TheVog 5d ago

Step 3: start on the bottom rung of the union's salary scale because seniority only counts years you've been in said union and not years teaching.

5

u/Bellowery 5d ago

Bootlicker. It’s rugged individualism to decline a union. That sense of entitlement is how the bosses make sure you fall in line. It is easier to control 50 individuals coming to you separately than a group of 50 bringing joint complaints.

0

u/TheVog 5d ago

Wait, are you actually calling me a bootlicker? For pointing out that someone may not want to go from earning 100k to 45k just to join a union?

3

u/Bellowery 5d ago

Nobody takes that kind of pay cut, it’s anti-labor hyperbole, but yes, I do think taking a small pay cut to be in a union is morally right. My husband is currently trying to get a union vote in his shop. He will never make more money in a union, he’s topped out, but a union is the right thing and we make sacrifices for the right thing. You’re working for the good of all workers or you’re letting the bosses use your entitlement to screw everyone over. No social change has ever happened in this country without organized labor behind it.

0

u/ToughHardware 5d ago

disagree

-4

u/Quickjager 6d ago

But that doesn't help people in a church ran school, like op is asking advice for.

3

u/cbftw 5d ago

There are teacher shortages everywhere. The helpful advice for everyone teaching at a religious school is the post you replied to

0

u/bruce_kwillis 5d ago

Unfortunately a lot of states (especially in the south where religious private schools are very popular) don't allow unionization of teachers as they are considered 'state' employees.

At least in my state, they easily would not renew a teacher's contract for the very same thing, and I know several people who have been associated or had someone associated with OF and let go. The truth is unless there are protections in place for activities outside of work, this sort of thing will always happen.

2

u/creative_usr_name 5d ago

5 of 50 is not a lot, but it is too many.

In Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and South Carolina, collective bargaining was entirely prohibited for public employees

source

3

u/Curiously_Zestful 6d ago

The school year has started. The only work will be substitute teaching until the next semester. They won't get rid of any teachers until December which is why they gave a warning.

4

u/Viola-Swamp 6d ago

There are a bunch of teaching positions listed as open in my district. I’d wager that’s true in many areas, in many states. I don’t know about Canuckistan, or other countries, but there is a shortage of teachers in the US.

1

u/Curiously_Zestful 5d ago

That's good...makes their behavior even more insane

2

u/Gator__Sandman 5d ago

I went to a Christian cult school who would sit a teacher or student down and ask if they were “saved” and practicing and they didn’t like the answer you no longer went/worked there. It’s all in the bylaws, private schools can fire you over anything pretty much that doesn’t fit their standards.

2

u/Pure_Expression6308 5d ago

In that case, OP should definitely leave because they would’ve fired her if they had a replacement, so it’s just a matter of time

1

u/girmvofj3857 5d ago

You might not save your own job, but your lawyer might be able to drag Jan down with you, if you were feeling like spending money on petty revenge.

1

u/DPlurker 5d ago

An employment lawyer would be the expert here. She should get a consultation, they can tell her if it's a waste of time or not.

73

u/bumjiggy 6d ago

employee handbook

you mean... the bible? it's likely the church school hasn't read it

6

u/Coal_Morgan 6d ago

They'd fire Jesus Christ for being seen with Mary Magdalene and he's been noted to have dined with many prostitutes and other sinners.

It's likely if they tried to read it, they'd declare it heretical to the Christianity they want.

2

u/anomalous_cowherd 5d ago

"They don't follow that bit".

23

u/camlaw63 6d ago

The Supreme Court sided with two Catholic schools in a ruling Wednesday underscoring that certain employees of religious schools, hospitals, and social service centers can’t sue for employment discrimination.

4

u/nickelroo 5d ago

Ding ding ding.

Rule 1: just because Redditors upvote each other, doesn’t mean it’s good advice.

2

u/HarveysBackupAccount 5d ago

also is "dating someone with an OF page" a protected class? I would guess no...

1

u/camlaw63 5d ago

It wouldn’t matter if it were.

1

u/MarathonRabbit69 6d ago

Because their rights trump yours, apparently

2

u/camlaw63 5d ago

The reasoning was the separation of church and state, sometimes it’s gonna have a shitty result. But the government can’t force a religious institution to hire people, if we are serious about keeping the government out of religion and religion out of government.

1

u/MarathonRabbit69 5d ago

I’m aware of the tortured logic the Supreme Court used. It’s worse than the logic they used in Bush v Gore.

That line of reasoning is specious. The first amendment just says the government cannot establish a religion or prevent people from “freely exercising” their religion. Nowhere does it imply that religious organizations should not have to follow the general rules of secular society. An employer following employment law is not in any way abridging their right to freely practice their religion.

It is, however, preventing them from forcing their religion on others. But apparently in the US, if you are an employer, your “religious rights” include forcing your employees to submit to your beliefs, at least, as long as your are a conservative Christian.

100%, this would not be the case if the business owner were Islamic or Zorastrian.

163

u/[deleted] 6d ago edited 6d ago

[deleted]

37

u/Lears 6d ago

Can almost guarantee there is a morality cause in OPs contract. Quite common at a Religiously affiliated school and they use it for termination all the time.

8

u/meroisstevie 6d ago

100% There is.

1

u/New-Bar4405 5d ago

If the morality claws on the contract cover this, she would probably already be fired most likely.It covers only the teacher's own behavior, and that is why they did not fire her.

1

u/Viola-Swamp 6d ago

Teachers should be able to have privacy. With the current SCOTUS and the shitty rulings coming down, plus the terrible rulings over the past few years that throw out precedent and Constitutionality, should doesn’t matter.

74

u/camlaw63 6d ago

Actually, working for a religious affiliated school is not the same as working for any other employer.

The Supreme Court sided with two Catholic schools in a ruling Wednesday underscoring that certain employees of religious schools, hospitals, and social service centers can’t sue for employment discrimination.

9

u/MrsMiterSaw 6d ago

Even so, what's the discrimination? Dating a sex worker is not a protected class.

8

u/camlaw63 6d ago

There’s no point even going to the next level. They can discriminate, even against a protected class.

1

u/SuccessfulRest1 6d ago

The US are a fkg insane country. That's really mad stuff there.

-1

u/JewGuru 5d ago

Yeah. Surreal

2

u/kitsinni 6d ago

Only if you are considered a ministerial position though right? My understanding is that they said the IT staff wouldn’t be subject to the same rules.

1

u/MRSMISSFUN 5d ago

No, OP definitely signed something that said she’d publicly uphold the school’s values and they could fire her for not doing so. 

1

u/kitsinni 5d ago

I have worked for a couple religious schools and I have not.

1

u/MRSMISSFUN 5d ago

Were they Catholic Schools? They tend to have them, at least in the US. These days, you can’t even walk in the door without a background check. 

1

u/kitsinni 5d ago

Both US catholic schools and both hired me as an equal opportunity employee but employees involved in religion work were ministerial. I have submitted to extensive background checks, fingerprinting etc.

1

u/MRSMISSFUN 5d ago

Regardless, it sounds like OP did sign such an agreement and she seems kind of immature in that she doesn’t understand why her employer has a problem with this and thinks it’s only fair that the person with the account be reprimanded as well. 

1

u/kitsinni 5d ago

Some schools did require all employees reclassified as ministerial after a Supreme Court case. It is quite possible that is what happened there. If you are involved with teaching religion you are pretty much guaranteed to be. As a non-Catholic who just happened to work at a catholic school I won’t work for one that considers me ministerial.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/camlaw63 5d ago edited 5d ago

No— they broadened the definition of ministerial, and it’s questionable whether or not it’s going to get even further broadened to include any employees. But OP is a teacher.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2020/0708/Supreme-Court-religious-schools-can-discriminate-when-hiring

The U.S. Supreme Court has eschewed a “rigid formula” for application of the “ministerial exception.” Thus, lower courts are left to draw boundaries based on the newly announced principle from Our Lady: “What matters, at bottom, is what an employee does.” Importantly, this principle may even reach “secular” employees. That is, an employee need not be a practicing member of the religion for the exception to apply.

1

u/97Graham 6d ago

The because half the court are nutjob zealots.

1

u/camlaw63 5d ago

It was a 7-2 decision in 2020

14

u/X-calibreX 6d ago

You dont need legal grounds for termination in a right to work state(i dont know where this is), it is at will employment. Find another job, why do you want to work there.

2

u/Vykrom 6d ago

I mean, if you can exit with lawsuit money instead of just exit, why not? lol.. Screw that school

3

u/Ready-Invite-1966 6d ago

There's no grounds for a lawsuit unless there's a breach of contract.

2

u/MrsMiterSaw 6d ago

"right to work" means you can't be forced to join a union to get a job.

You are right that it's at-will employment, in any state but Montana.

This whole thread is nuts. OP doesn't have any legal protection.

4

u/Ready-Invite-1966 6d ago

Clarification: 

Right to work: the conservative name for not having to join a union

At will: termination without cause

36

u/crazywidget 6d ago

No, not all "private employers" are held to the same standards.

17

u/xfjjxcxw 6d ago edited 6d ago

NAL but I think they mean wrongful termination so instances of termination like retaliation, discrimination, etc. Those laws would be equitable across public and private employment, I believe.

Edit: For the love of all things, I am not saying OP IS a protected class. I was saying that equitable laws of termination on the ground of protected classes exist in the public and private sector.

3

u/sallyskull4 6d ago

Yes, but depending on what OP signed when hired, the could potentially be legally terminated. Many religious schools have pretty restrictive morality clauses. I’ve seen them with my own eyes. It’s wild.

-4

u/H0SS_AGAINST 6d ago

What protected class is banging a guy who swings his hog around on the internet for a living?

6

u/User123466789012 6d ago

Wrongful termination is a federally protected act and they are all bound to it.

2

u/Squirrel_Q_Esquire 6d ago

Religious employers can discriminate for religious reasons

1

u/Enough-Ad-8799 6d ago

Would violating a morality clause in their contact and being fired be considered wrongful termination?

2

u/User123466789012 6d ago

I’m not speaking on this post, I’m just correcting their comment on private employers being except from federal law.

3

u/Enough-Ad-8799 6d ago

They said not all private employers are held to the same standard which is true. It's actually explicitly laid out in federal law.

1

u/User123466789012 6d ago

Which federal law?

1

u/Enough-Ad-8799 6d ago

Here are some of the exceptions to age as a protected class. There's also things like female only gyms or stuff like strip clips that are allowed to hire only women for certain positions.

https://www.crosslawfirm.com/blog/2020/05/what-are-the-exceptions-to-age-discrimination-protections/

2

u/User123466789012 6d ago

Well that was absolutely off topic, so not sure why you sent that

→ More replies (0)

1

u/syopest 6d ago

It's not wrongful termination to terminate OP for dating a sex worker. That's not a protected class.

They could terminate OP for wearing green socks and it would be legal.

-1

u/thedudeabidezzzz 6d ago

This is the dumbest take. Every employer is held to federal employment law.

At a minimum they could file for unemployment and blab about why they were fired with no repercussions.

The school has incentive to not let either of those things happen.

5

u/crazywidget 6d ago

And yet…

In the employment law context, religious institutions enjoy legal protections that other employers do not. A legal doctrine known as the ministerial exception allows ministries to seek the dismissal of certain employment law claims filed by employees or former employees.

https://www.cwlaw.com/newsletters-40#:~:text=In%20the%20employment%20law%20context,by%20employees%20or%20former%20employees.

https://www.churchlawcenter.com/church-law/which-federal-employment-laws-apply-to-churches/

5

u/YoureSooMoneyy 6d ago

It would be perfectly legal if she signed an agreement about this type of thing. It’s likely she did.

8

u/AncientDreamscape 6d ago

If she signed a "morality clause" as part of her contract, the Church School has the option to exercise it.

6

u/Hannig4n 6d ago

I wonder if the principal subscribing to a sex worker is also in violation of the morality clause. OP is in a normal relationship with him and has no involvement or affiliation with the sex work. The principal is more involved with the actual sex work than she is.

Lawyer could make some sort of case for uneven enforcement of the morality clause that protects OP or at least gets them a bag on the way out.

16

u/llywen 6d ago

These comments crack me up, because they’re written with such confidence. You have no idea what her local laws are, and it most likely is legal grounds for termination.

5

u/EffortlessSleaze 6d ago

If she is in an at-will state, it is totally grounds for termination because everything, but protected characteristics is grounds for termination. 

3

u/Quirky-Employee3719 6d ago

No. First of all, that is incorrect. OP almost for certain, has a Morals Clause in her contract that addresses this. Btw, most right to work states have Moral Clauses in their contacts for state workers and teachers. Religious schools can also fire employees for anything that doesn't align with their beliefs. It's infuriating, but true.

1

u/oldcousingreg 5d ago

Jane and the other administrators are also likely bound to the same morality clause, so by their own logic there’s a case to be made that Jane should be fired

3

u/Illustrious-Okra-524 6d ago

That’s backwards. Public school is much more incentivized to settle 

1

u/Ready-Invite-1966 6d ago

There's almost no chance it's an illegal termination. 

OP is a women but I'd not being terminated for being a woman. 

OP is being terminated because of her public image and her relationship with a sex worker. Get relationship doesn't fall under a protected class. 

Unless she has something specific in a contract precluding this termination... There's not much op can do but job hunt and file for unemployment if she gets terminated.

1

u/meroisstevie 6d ago

Man you are giving horrible advice lol

1

u/Squirrel_Q_Esquire 6d ago

This false. Stop upvoting this people. Religious employers have all sorts of exemptions.

1

u/MrsMiterSaw 6d ago

This is not legal grounds for termination

Explain why.

1

u/MotherEssay9968 6d ago

? A private firm is not beholden to tax dollars from the government therefore they have more freedom/say over the decision they make. Public schools are much different in that their money comes from taxpayers, therefore they're more inclined to follow local rules and regulations.

0

u/Legion1117 6d ago

This is not legal grounds for termination and likely HR calmed principal down from taking action in favor of giving it a few more days to find a better reason.

You don't understand employment law, especially when it comes to private, CHURCH BASED, schools.

Please stop trying to give OP advice on this matter, you're not helping.

35

u/slash_networkboy 6d ago

 Church owned school, then they can be as hateful as they want.

I know what you mean, but there are actually limits, just a lot less of them.

Also the lawyer in this case isn't to win a case, it's to bully them into paying hush money to OP once terminated.

2

u/frolicndetour 6d ago

Lawyers have ethical obligations that do not allow them to "bully" people into paying out over a nonexistent claim. That's called extortion. And frankly, the school would tell them to kick rocks, because I'm sure a religious institution is happy to publicly acknowledge that they fired someone for this.

1

u/Emesgrandma 6d ago

Will they feel the same way when they find out about the principals actions if there are any….. like nullifying her own morality clause SHE signed? OP can not be accused without proof. The sex worker being her bf has nothing to do with that! I bet they would find more unacceptable behavior between this guy and the principal if they looked! Hey, what’s good for the goose…… right?

1

u/Legion1117 6d ago

OP can not be accused without proof.

I nearly choked on my drink at this line.

You're talking about a large group of people who worship an unseen entity in the sky that controls everything in the world, says everything that happens is part of "His plan" and bases their lives on a book with so many unverifiable and completely preposterous claims that I consider it one of the greatest works of Fiction of all time.....and you think they need PROOF here to make an accusation against OP?????

I'm dying over here. lmao

2

u/frolicndetour 6d ago

Yea and on top of that, you don't need proof of anything to fire someone from at will employment.

0

u/DPlurker 5d ago

You do need to fire them for a legal reason even if it's at will. An employment lawyer can look over the case and see if you have grounds to sue. Even if they give no reason you can still sue for wrongful termination and then they have to provide the actual reason.

I'd also add that she should look for a new job at the same time.

1

u/frolicndetour 5d ago

Dude, I am an actual lawyer. As long as you don't fire an at will employee for an ILLEGAL reason (race, gender, etc), they can fire them for any reason whatsoever, including not liking the shirt they wore to work that day.

1

u/DPlurker 5d ago

False, even if you are a lawyer, if I'm willing to believe that, you shouldn't be discouraging people from having a consultation. They should be speaking to someone that deals with employment law. If someone thinks that they were discriminated against and their employer says I fired him because his shirt was blue, that shit is not going to fly. It's probably going to be found in discovery.

0

u/stupidusernamesuck 6d ago

You clearly have no legal background whatsoever; please stop giving misguided advice.

-2

u/PipsqueakPilot 6d ago

America’s largest Christian seminary was still segregated in 2000. Christians gonna Christian. 

2

u/October_Baby21 6d ago

What seminary are you referring to? I can’t find that

0

u/PipsqueakPilot 6d ago

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2000/02/28/bush-caters-to-the-bigotry-of-bob-jones/c5cf2e56-8b52-47ea-8a60-ca834235a34e/

"We basically accept that there are three races--Caucasians, Negroes and Orientals. Caucasians can't date Orientals. Orientals can't date Caucasians, and neither of them can date Negroes."

--Bob Jones III, president, Bob Jones University

2

u/October_Baby21 6d ago

BJU is weird and they definitely desegregated late but it says it was 1971. They also are not the largest seminary. Not even top 10

0

u/PipsqueakPilot 6d ago

I was incorrect concerning them being the largest as I misremembered the proportion of their total enrollment that was part of the seminary program.

That said, they did not fully desegregate until 2000. As evidenced by the article I linked above. If you’re still forbidding people from interacting or living together based on a race- that’s segregation.

2

u/packofpoodles 6d ago

Exactly. OP really should have led with the type of school because it being a religious school makes a MASSIVE difference. They can essentially fire her for anything.

1

u/corgi-king 6d ago

Gees. Imagine someone’s family went to jail. Also, will the pastor/priest allow in the school? I heard they are the naughty ones.

1

u/danboy 6d ago

FFRF might help also

https://ffrf.org/

1

u/kitsinni 6d ago

Actually it all comes down to what type of employee you are. There are ministerial employees and equal opportunity employees at the same organization many times. Even churches are limited in what they can do if you are hired as an equal opportunity employer of a non-ministerial position.

1

u/Sipikay 5d ago

Employment laws don’t go away if a business is run by a church get out of here.

1

u/RNH213PDX 5d ago

You are so correct. OP glossed over the fact that they are private in the original post, but there is essentially no cause of action here.

1

u/APFernweh 5d ago

Yeah, I feel like OP leaving out that the school is a private church-associated school was a real failure for providing context here. I kept wondering why she wasn’t answering all of the “are you in a union?” questions. As an at-will employee of a religious institution, she’s not going to have an actionable lawsuit.

1

u/KiltedLady 5d ago

Most religious organizations have some umbrella policy in their handbook like "employees are expected to uphold the moral values of the organization at work and in their personal lives" which they will claim is the policy she is breaking.

Not saying it's right, I just used to work at a religious group and had a friend fired for her out of work activities.

1

u/Fit_Detective_8374 5d ago

Churches aren't immune to constructive dismissal. If OP is being singled out for "lewd" activities while at the same time their employer is actively ignoring those same behaviours from other employees, then they're opening themselves up to some legal issues.

1

u/PostStructuralTea 5d ago

This is not true. Rules are similar on this issue for private & public schools. The reality is a public school could also discipline a teacher/forbid a visitor on these grounds. And I doubt the ACLU would be interested, even if this were a public school.

Also - the stuff about the employee handbook is wrong. Employers are allowed to make up new policies, change policies, or just do things off-the-cuff. The exception is for things like firing whistleblowers or members of a protected class, which doesn't apply here.

Source: am attorney.

1

u/monowedge 5d ago

There's a litmus test I ask people in situations like this to get them to realize that this isn't a hate / religious issue. That question is (in this case):

Would you be fine and comfortable with an OF worker sending one of their content videos to your child, or any child?

Because there is a reason why places like OF ask and have legalese for, "Are you 18+?"

-1

u/DerthOFdata 6d ago

If it's a public school it can't be affiliated with a church legally.

-1

u/BadgeringMagpie 6d ago

Religious schools should be illegal.