Infertility is a disability (teacher at private catholic school fired for IVF)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To be fair to her, she had worked at the school for eight years and was fired when she was 31. I doubt that many 23 year-olds think about whether or not they will need to do IVF before considering what job to take. Every 23 year old assumes they will get married, have sex, and get pregnant right away.

Also, I tried really hard for years to keep my infertility from everyone, including my family and friends but also from the people in my workplace. IVF involves months of monitoring and appointments followed by several days that you must take off to do the egg retrieval and transfer. Eventually, both my husband and I had to tell our bosses what was going on in order to get leave approved. I think that more people we worked with knew what was going on than people in our families because we missed meetings, couldn't go on business trips during certain periods, etc.

Anyone who thinks that it is possible to keep this information totally private has never faced the logistical dilemmas that come with IVF.

I knew I could not have children since I was 16 yo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw her on Today show this morning. I'm REALLY not sure why she felt the need to share this information (that she was undergoing IVF) with anyone within a Catholic school. It really was her business, and who cares HOW she gets pregnant? Medical procedures are private, correct? It's just dumb all around. I have huge issues with the Catholic Church in general, but I'm having a problem feeling sympathetic in this particular case.

On the other hand, I have secondary IF like her and SHOULD feel some pity for her general dilemma, I just think she was dumb to tell anyone in a strict religious school about it.

I guarantee she informed them because of the frequent absences and tardies from all the monitoring, retrieval and transfer appointments were being noticed.

that is NOT how she presented it on Today Show. watch the clip - she made it sound like she felt "forced" to share because she kept getting asked when she was planning to have another. Which is of course another very personal question and none of anyone's damn business.

I get that this involves time off, but why do you haver to share WHAT the doctor's visits are for? I just feel like it violates privacy to be asked what your doctor's appointments are for - what if she had cancer and didn't want to tell anyone? She can't be forced to share anything other than "I have a doctor's appointment"

You sound like someone who has never been seriously ill or had a serious medical condition. Of course you have a "right" to keep things to yourself but the reality is that its not that easy. Haven't you ever had a colleague who started missing work for unexplained reasons? Hasn't the office rumor mill tried to figure out why? Has no one in your office asked the person point blank what is going on? I have worked in a small private school and it is very difficult to keep private things which have a public expression (like appearance changes, missing work, etc.) Maybe this works in a big office or a bureaucratic government agency, but at a small workplace where close socializing takes place, people are friends with spouses/families, and have other community contact with each other, it would be really hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair to her, she had worked at the school for eight years and was fired when she was 31. I doubt that many 23 year-olds think about whether or not they will need to do IVF before considering what job to take. Every 23 year old assumes they will get married, have sex, and get pregnant right away.

Also, I tried really hard for years to keep my infertility from everyone, including my family and friends but also from the people in my workplace. IVF involves months of monitoring and appointments followed by several days that you must take off to do the egg retrieval and transfer. Eventually, both my husband and I had to tell our bosses what was going on in order to get leave approved. I think that more people we worked with knew what was going on than people in our families because we missed meetings, couldn't go on business trips during certain periods, etc.

Anyone who thinks that it is possible to keep this information totally private has never faced the logistical dilemmas that come with IVF.

I knew I could not have children since I was 16 yo.

I'm sorry. That must have been very difficult news to hear at that age and I bet you have thought about fertility coverage/acceptance with every job that you have taken. Most people do not know about their fertility status until they start to test it. I know that I was blindsided by the fact that I was young, healthy, and infertile.

[Anonymous]

Every time I start to miss the church and feel like I should go back and bring my family, they do something that makes me remember why I had to leave it.

I miss it so much. But I just cannot be a part of this crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every time I start to miss the church and feel like I should go back and bring my family, they do something that makes me remember why I had to leave it.

I miss it so much. But I just cannot be a part of this crap.

Same here

Signed a former Catholic with an IVF baby

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair to her, she had worked at the school for eight years and was fired when she was 31. I doubt that many 23 year-olds think about whether or not they will need to do IVF before considering what job to take. Every 23 year old assumes they will get married, have sex, and get pregnant right away.

Also, I tried really hard for years to keep my infertility from everyone, including my family and friends but also from the people in my workplace. IVF involves months of monitoring and appointments followed by several days that you must take off to do the egg retrieval and transfer. Eventually, both my husband and I had to tell our bosses what was going on in order to get leave approved. I think that more people we worked with knew what was going on than people in our families because we missed meetings, couldn't go on business trips during certain periods, etc.

Anyone who thinks that it is possible to keep this information totally private has never faced the logistical dilemmas that come with IVF.

I knew I could not have children since I was 16 yo.

Sorry, PP, but this is a different story. This woman already had one child, and her infertility was secondary.

[Anonymous]

I don't see what the big deal is. She chose to teach at a Catholic school. Catholic schools exist to spread the Catholic faith to the next generation. Any teaching position at a Catholic school generally involves a religious component -- the whole idea behind parochial schools is that the religious aspect is pervasive, its not meant to be confined to the religion class. Any school that is serious about teaching children the tenets of the religion has to at the very least enforce those tenets with the teachers who are either directly or indirectly supposed to be imparting them to the students. If the school does not, the students and wider community will think that the school, an arm of the Catholic Church, doesnot take its own doctrine that seriously. That is a huge problem, and directly undermines the faith that these schools are trying to instill.
Freedom of religion is a great thing, and for it to exist, religions need to have the basic freedom to fire employees who don't follow their rules. I would also support an Orthodox Jewish school firing a teacher who didn't circumcise his/her sons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thoughts?

I don't know that this really should be considered a disability, but at the same time the Catholic Church really seems to find ways to fire its women teachers.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/04/26/teacher-says-catholic-school-fired-her-over-ivf/

I am not Catholic but if I accept a job with an organization, school, whatever, that is Catholic, then I have to abide by their rules. No one held a gun to her head to take this job and she should have known the Church's position on IVF. I know and, as I said, am not Catholic.

Not every parish is the same. Like other religions - Judaism, for example - there are different levels. Sadly, she worked in a conservative setting. I've known priests who are in favor of IVF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't see what the big deal is. She chose to teach at a Catholic school. Catholic schools exist to spread the Catholic faith to the next generation. Any teaching position at a Catholic school generally involves a religious component -- the whole idea behind parochial schools is that the religious aspect is pervasive, its not meant to be confined to the religion class. Any school that is serious about teaching children the tenets of the religion has to at the very least enforce those tenets with the teachers who are either directly or indirectly supposed to be imparting them to the students. If the school does not, the students and wider community will think that the school, an arm of the Catholic Church, doesnot take its own doctrine that seriously. That is a huge problem, and directly undermines the faith that these schools are trying to instill.
Freedom of religion is a great thing, and for it to exist, religions need to have the basic freedom to fire employees who don't follow their rules. I would also support an Orthodox Jewish school firing a teacher who didn't circumcise his/her sons.

BUT IVF is such a private thing. It's not like she was teaching her students that IVF was a great way to make a baby. Why did the school need to go digging around into her private life? What a witch hunt!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see what the big deal is. She chose to teach at a Catholic school. Catholic schools exist to spread the Catholic faith to the next generation. Any teaching position at a Catholic school generally involves a religious component -- the whole idea behind parochial schools is that the religious aspect is pervasive, its not meant to be confined to the religion class. Any school that is serious about teaching children the tenets of the religion has to at the very least enforce those tenets with the teachers who are either directly or indirectly supposed to be imparting them to the students. If the school does not, the students and wider community will think that the school, an arm of the Catholic Church, doesnot take its own doctrine that seriously. That is a huge problem, and directly undermines the faith that these schools are trying to instill.
Freedom of religion is a great thing, and for it to exist, religions need to have the basic freedom to fire employees who don't follow their rules. I would also support an Orthodox Jewish school firing a teacher who didn't circumcise his/her sons.

BUT IVF is such a private thing. It's not like she was teaching her students that IVF was a great way to make a baby. Why did the school need to go digging around into her private life? What a witch hunt!

It sounds like people asked her the standard innocuous questions about "when are you going to have a second?" It doesn't sound like they were rooting through her trash looking for proof on EOBs. I'm an IVF vetern, and like it or not, there are people out there who believe it is immoral. If you happen to work for those people, why the heck would you blatantly tell people you were doing something that the organization specifically does NOT sanction? As a PP said, if it comes down to documentation, get the RE to write a vague note about ongoing treatment. When people keep asking the question about more kids, just say, "I'm having some medical issues right now." Period. By going into detail about something that is specifically prohibited by her organization's moral code, she took a risk, and she lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It sounds like people asked her the standard innocuous questions about "when are you going to have a second?" It doesn't sound like they were rooting through her trash looking for proof on EOBs. I'm an IVF vetern, and like it or not, there are people out there who believe it is immoral. If you happen to work for those people, why the heck would you blatantly tell people you were doing something that the organization specifically does NOT sanction? As a PP said, if it comes down to documentation, get the RE to write a vague note about ongoing treatment. When people keep asking the question about more kids, just say, "I'm having some medical issues right now." Period. By going into detail about something that is specifically prohibited by her organization's moral code, she took a risk, and she lost.

this was what I was getting at in my other post. She was not obligated to tell them EXACTLY what treatments she was receiving. And so what if people talk? Sure, the pressure will be intense, but if you were working somewhere that such a thing is considered immoral, why the hell would you share such intensely personal and detailed information? There are all kinds of fertility treatments - IVF is just one type. How would someone know that it was IVF and not IUI if you just left it at "treatments" if you MUST share?

Do I agree with her firing? No, I think the Catholic Church has lost it's damn mind with this garbage. But knowing what type of workplace you are in, and the views of the Catholic Church that you work for, WHY would you open yourself up to this if there are ways around it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just as an FYI, OP, it has been more than a decade since the Supreme Court noted that infertility was a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Old news.

Do you get a red or blue disabled parking placard? How the hell can infertility be a disability? No one has an "absolute" right to have children. This needs to readdressed by the present, more conservative Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't see what the big deal is. She chose to teach at a Catholic school. Catholic schools exist to spread the Catholic faith to the next generation. Any teaching position at a Catholic school generally involves a religious component -- the whole idea behind parochial schools is that the religious aspect is pervasive, its not meant to be confined to the religion class. Any school that is serious about teaching children the tenets of the religion has to at the very least enforce those tenets with the teachers who are either directly or indirectly supposed to be imparting them to the students. If the school does not, the students and wider community will think that the school, an arm of the Catholic Church, doesnot take its own doctrine that seriously. That is a huge problem, and directly undermines the faith that these schools are trying to instill.
Freedom of religion is a great thing, and for it to exist, religions need to have the basic freedom to fire employees who don't follow their rules. I would also support an Orthodox Jewish school firing a teacher who didn't circumcise his/her sons.

I guess for me, the question is, would her husband have been fired if he was the teacher and found out his wife was undergoing ivf? The catholic church allows so many men to get away with s lot of things, but ont let a woman try to break a single rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It sounds like people asked her the standard innocuous questions about "when are you going to have a second?" It doesn't sound like they were rooting through her trash looking for proof on EOBs. I'm an IVF vetern, and like it or not, there are people out there who believe it is immoral. If you happen to work for those people, why the heck would you blatantly tell people you were doing something that the organization specifically does NOT sanction? As a PP said, if it comes down to documentation, get the RE to write a vague note about ongoing treatment. When people keep asking the question about more kids, just say, "I'm having some medical issues right now." Period. By going into detail about something that is specifically prohibited by her organization's moral code, she took a risk, and she lost.

this was what I was getting at in my other post. She was not obligated to tell them EXACTLY what treatments she was receiving. And so what if people talk? Sure, the pressure will be intense, but if you were working somewhere that such a thing is considered immoral, why the hell would you share such intensely personal and detailed information? There are all kinds of fertility treatments - IVF is just one type. How would someone know that it was IVF and not IUI if you just left it at "treatments" if you MUST share?

Do I agree with her firing? No, I think the Catholic Church has lost it's damn mind with this garbage. But knowing what type of workplace you are in, and the views of the Catholic Church that you work for, WHY would you open yourself up to this if there are ways around it?

All fertility treatments are frowned upon by the Catholic church (IUI included) thus seeing an RE would probably be grounds for firing. I'm sure she felt her job was at risk and was looking for compassion. Shockingly, the Catholic church, as Christians, have none to offer women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just as an FYI, OP, it has been more than a decade since the Supreme Court noted that infertility was a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Old news.

Do you get a red or blue disabled parking placard? How the hell can infertility be a disability? No one has an "absolute" right to have children. This needs to readdressed by the present, more conservative Court.

Of course someone who has been diagnosed with infertility doesn't get a disabled parking placard. Those placards are only for people with mobility-related disabilities. However, as was pointed out in an earlier post, the American with Disabilities Act is the legal means by which the US government ensures that people are not discriminated against for their disabilities and medical conditions in areas like employment. So, someone who has a medical condition (such as MS, lupus, Addison's disease, infertility) who has to miss work or needs a reasonable accommodation cannot be fired for tending to their medical needs. Someone who has a covered condition like infertility is going to need the protections of the ADA only lightly since their medical condition doesn't require many accommodations beyond time off for doctors appointments, but for someone who is being hassled by a boss for being late to work on days they have to go to the doctor, the ADA offers important protections.

And, while no one has an "absolute" right to have children - like no one has an "absolute" right to be sighted or an "absolute" right to have hearing in the normal range - everyone has an "absolute" right to access medical care to treat their condition (especially if they are paying for it out of their own pocket because insurance doesn't cover it).