Oct 10, 2011 -- 4:50PM, Wanderingal wrote:

I'd like to see the court define it more narrowly too. And I think that's what the churches are afraid of.

Honestly, there's not much in disabled persons laws that Churches have much to fear from.  

I think the fear comes from that old "slippery slope" argument; if you make them adhere to hiring laws regarding disabled persons (they think), the next thing will be people suing to force female priests and imams and the like.

Or:  these sorts of institutions are also businesses when it comes to hiring and firing and compensating; and as such have an instinctive dislike in being told by government how to do their business- including hiring and firing.  Any loophole to get out of that. 

Oct 10, 2011 -- 8:29PM, Wanderingal wrote:

Oct 10, 2011 -- 7:46PM, jane2 wrote:

So far I have seen little afforded as to what this all about. How about some details presented here or a real link?

See posta #1 and #7 above.

Links in the OP are inoperative as such. Post #7???

Just a new state vs the RCC diatribe, it would seem. You're on a roll.............and after all that parochial elementary school euducation. (sarcasm intended.)

Oct 10, 2011 -- 7:30PM, fodaoson wrote:

Any activity under the umbrella of religious teaching is outside the  pale of government.     

So if a religion required human sacrifice, you'd be all right with that. The government couldn't act to  prevent it.

Sounds to me as though a financially troubled church school decided to cut its losses and terminate a teacher whose disabilty was likely to continue being a costly inconvenience. 

Given that the teacher had completed a training course making her a "called" teacher rather than simply a contract one, it may be difficult to establish this as an ADA violation. Ministerial exemption may apply.  

Narcolepsy is a disability that can present notable problems for a school since it's not so readily accommodated as disabilities that affect movement. A teacher possibly needing to be absent often might become an expensive liability. 

Should be an intriguing case to follow. 

Oct 11, 2011 -- 8:06AM, DotNotInOz wrote:

Sounds to me as though a financially troubled church school decided to cut its losses and terminate a teacher whose disabilty was likely to continue being a costly inconvenience.  Given that the teacher had completed a training course making her a "called" teacher rather than simply a contract one, it may be difficult to establish this as an ADA violation. Ministerial exemption may apply.   Narcolepsy is a disability that can present notable problems for a school since it's not so readily accommodated as disabilities that affect movement. A teacher possibly needing to be absent often might become an expensive liability.  Should be an intriguing case to follow. 

This is an aspect of the business argument I was referring to earlier.  There are legitimate concerns about the cost impact of ADA on such small businesses.  I'm not an expert in this law, but as I understand it there is a "small business" exemption; but this is  defined as fewer than 14 employees, so I would guess private schools would not fall under this. 

As far as narcolepsy goes, yes, this would interfere with her ability to do the job.  But  supposedly she had been successfully treated.