Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But I thought a sin is a sin no matter how large or small it is.
busta
If you would have paid attention, you would have seen that that was what I was getting at, but I wouldn't expect you to actually read a post beforee refuting it.
Part of it comes down to what is morally acceptable to what is legally acceptable. Two different things. The school may justifiably feel they had the moral right to fire her and make the conditions public, but the courts will wind up deciding if they had the legal right to do so.
I agree. And what the answer will be is quite interesting.
If you would have paid attention, you would have seen that that was what I was getting at, but I wouldn't expect you to actually read a post beforee refuting it.
If you would have paid attention, you would have noticed that I was yanking your chain, looks like it worked, but I didn't expect you to get it.
If Florida is a right to work state she can be fired for any reason, the employer has sole right to hire or fire for any reason.
Actually, not for any reason. They can't fire for reasons considered discriminatory under the EEOC. They also can't violate an employee's civil rights under HIPAA. They did both in this case.
Actually, not for any reason. They can't fire for reasons considered discriminatory under the EEOC. They also can't violate an employee's civil rights under HIPAA. They did both in this case.
You should know that adulterers aren't protected classes, which is why she was fired, so they didn't violate her civil rights, unless she could argue that they fired her because she was black, a woman, or pregnant. I would assume that the school has other teachers who had or have these characteristics and weren't fired so that lawsuit would go nowhere.
Second, HIPAA doesn't protect a person if they reveal a medical condition themselves, which I would guess she did in this case.
You should know that adulterers aren't protected classes, which is why she was fired, so they didn't violate her civil rights, unless she could argue that they fired her because she was black, a woman, or pregnant. I would assume that the school has other teachers who had or have these characteristics and weren't fired so that lawsuit would go nowhere.
Second, HIPAA doesn't protect a person if they reveal a medical condition themselves, which I would guess she did in this case.
You've been on a losing streak annerk
You know for a recent graduate you really do portray yourself as quite an unbearably pompous young twit. Instead of throwing around your ignorance of employment law why don't you use some of the research skills you surely learned in college to better educate yourself on the subject at hand? And please save the Christian moral lectures for the religion forum whose contributors would surely welcome your input, as skewed as it is.
You should know that adulterers aren't protected classes, which is why she was fired, so they didn't violate her civil rights, unless she could argue that they fired her because she was black, a woman, or pregnant. I would assume that the school has other teachers who had or have these characteristics and weren't fired so that lawsuit would go nowhere.
Second, HIPAA doesn't protect a person if they reveal a medical condition themselves, which I would guess she did in this case.
You've been on a losing streak annerk
You are missing the entire point. When they fired her, they violated her civil rights under HIPAA. She revealed the medical condition to the administration--not to the entire school and students parents. They violated her civil rights by revealing her condition and details about it to her coworkers and the public.
If you tell your supervisor you need time off because you are going for cancer treatments, your supervisor can not disclose that fact to anyone else within the organization other than certain HR or benefits administrators with a need to know. Doing so would be a violation of your civil rights. That is what happened to her, and that's where she's going to get a whole heaping pile of money.
From reading the story again, the outcome in court could be highly interesting! Was the school right in firing this lady.......morals wise, yes because she was teaching at a Christian school. As far as her health privacy issue goes, it does look like the school violated that and the school policy isn't totally clear enough, but the school still stands by the reasons she was fired. I still say that she knew, when she got hired, about Christian morals and isn't part of a Christian school teachings morality? To me, just another person in a professional field knowing what is right and wrong and choosing to do something wrong. Of course, doing the "wrong thing" means different things to different people........especially for the non-Christian/non-religious sectors of society.
Annerk is right. Her condition should not have been spread around to coworkers and the public. They are in violation no matter which way you slice it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
