Slog
Dec 19, 2013 2:51 PM
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Publication Info
Check it out
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Comments
The comments on the SeaTimes article, however, are beyond disgusting. Thankfully, that's the past and, like Ken Hutcherson, the past is dying.
I assume that means he's the guy to see for timeshares in the various circles of Hell.
SO PROUD OF THESE STUDENTS (and of the State of Washington). STANDING UP for equality.
@29 - that will never happen. You don't pay tuition, they hold your transcripts, and then it gets hard to go to college.
http://www.change.org/petitions/united-s…
Maybe Bill Gates should kick Lakeside into giving the principal a job. It would be only just, considering Microsoft's early cowardice on gay marriage.
@41: and the students, who are basically customers, are not happy with what this private business is doing. While it remains to be seen where the parents of these students stand, if a private business wants to stay in business, they need to keep the desires of their clientele in mind. Opinions are opinions; policy is policy. While there may be connections, they are not interchangeable.
A more difficult question is whether a school operated by a church is a religious institution and if so, are the people who run it covered by the "ministerial" exemption to employment laws? The Supreme Court ruled within the last year or so that basically, a church can define who its "ministers" are, not to be second-guessed by the courts, including "lay ministers". That said, I don't think the Catholic Church considers school employees in general "lay ministers" and it would be awfully "convenient" if this diocese suddenly made such a declaration. And while courts generally can't second-guess the criteria for being a "minister", they can verify that the definition is not mere pretext - by making sure all similarly-situated employees are subject to the same restrictions, for instance.
Once the preponderance of opinion is aligned with the current thinking at the top of the church hierarchy (which might be achievable with this pope) this issue will no longer be an issue.
Except that, in some instances (not necessarily this one), provisions of a contract that run contrary to the law would most likely be unenforceable.
For example, an employer can include all sorts of "morality clauses", but if the behavior in question is otherwise legal, and there is no impact on the employee's performance as a result of engaging in it, chances are the clause would be considered null-and-void. Same could be said of a contract that included language stating the employee agrees to waive their right to overtime pay if they are in a non-supervisory position; putting it into the contract doesn't negate the employee's right to time and-a-half after 40 hours, because workplace protections guaranteed under federal labor law can't be negotiated away.
Granted, religious institutions enjoy a great deal more leeway in this regard than do secular organizations, and furthermore, the costs of litigation are so extraordinarily high that most people won't bring suit, even if they believe they've been wronged. But nevertheless, just because something is IN a contract it doesn't always follow that it can be legally enforced.