Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View LCMS Supreme Court Case
3 years ago  ::  Oct 05, 2011 - 7:24PM #1
teilhard
Posts: 50,690
In the Case as argued today before The SCOTUS, I agree with The LCMS as to the Employment Status of Teachers in LCMS Schools ...

As I understand their Understanding and Practice, in The LCMS a "Teacher" is CALLED -- not just "Hired" ...

So in Legal Terms, a "Teacher" may well be regarded as fulfilling a "Ministry," NOT just filling a "Job" ...
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 05, 2011 - 11:21PM #2
AFskypilot
Posts: 352

Correction: in the LCMS only male teachers are called.  Female teachers are commissioned.  There are a few ELCA schools.  In those schools the both sexes are called.


As I understand it, a teacher was fired because she suffers from narcolypsy.  In any other setting being fired for such a disability would be protected under the Americans with Disability Act.


The District court had thrown out the case because of ministerial exception.


The Appeals court pointed out most of the teacher's job dealt with teaching reading writing and arithmatic and was therefore subject to the ADA.


It's now up to the Supreme Court. 


Were is Solomon when you need him?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 06, 2011 - 9:38AM #3
Ironhold
Posts: 11,465

Oct 5, 2011 -- 11:21PM, AFskypilot wrote:


Correction: in the LCMS only male teachers are called.  Female teachers are commissioned.  There are a few ELCA schools.  In those schools the both sexes are called.


As I understand it, a teacher was fired because she suffers from narcolypsy.  In any other setting being fired for such a disability would be protected under the Americans with Disability Act.





*steps in*


I had a feeling I should come back here again; guess this thread is why.


 


I'm going for my MBA, and so as you can imagine I've had employment law drilled into me quite a few times over.


The  truth of the matter is that the ADA and a number of other employment  laws have a caveat that most people don't know about - employers  can fire or refuse to hire a person who falls into a protected  category if they can prove that their membership in that category  renders them unable to do their job.


For example, a person in a wheelchair could easily work as a police dispatcher, but never as a beat cop; dispatchers sit behind a console most of the day, while beat cops need to be able to run and wrestle with criminals all day long.


Granted, it's a royal pain to have to put up with, especially since the burden is on the employer. But it can, indeed, be done.


Since this is a school setting, the case can be made that the teacher in question is responsible for her students under the concept of in loco parentis, meaning that she's the legally responsible adult in lieu of the actual presence of a parent or guardian. While the bulk of her duties involves simply teaching the three Rs, as a teacher she also has the duty to ensure the safety of her students in the event of a disaster or other dangerous situation; in some schools, the students are often so unruly that "lack of a teacher" could qualify as a dangerous situation.


So both sides actually do have a case here, and if SCOTUS hears it we likely will see a precedent set.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 06, 2011 - 10:02PM #4
teilhard
Posts: 50,690

In The LCMS, then, a Female Teacher is "Commissioned" -- NOT simply "hired" ...


I can still see how The LCMS will consider her Tasks as at least QUASI-Ministerial ...


Presumably the Guy, e.g., who clears Snow from The Parking Lot and Sidewalks ISN'T "Called" or "Commissioned," but only "hired" ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook