News


Home Page > News > Catholic diocese denies illegal action in firing teacher who received IVF – VIDEO

Catholic diocese denies illegal action in firing teacher who received IVF – VIDEO

Emily Herx's lawsuit claims she was discriminated against because of her IVF treatment

By
CATHY HAYES,
IrishCentral Staff Writer
Published Wednesday, May 16, 2012, 8:31 AM
Updated Wednesday, May 16, 2012, 8:31 AM

print this article Print
email this articleE-mail
comment on article 12 Comments
 

Emily Herx
Emily Herx
Photo by Google Images


Guinness PubFinder Ad

A Catholic diocese in Indiana is denying that it discriminated against a school teacher who claims she was fired for using in vitro fertilization to try to get pregnant.

In court documents filed Monday, the Catholic Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend asked a federal court to throw out Emily Herx's lawsuit which claims she was discriminated against because of her IVF treatment, the News-Sentinel reports.

“Herx's claim against the Diocese, as a religious employer, are barred, in whole or in part…under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States due to the religious content, purpose and meaning of her employment with the Diocese,” the papers said.

The mother claims the diocese discriminated against her by terminating her contract in April 2011 while she was undergoing in vitro fertilization. Herx taught at the school from 2003 through 2007 and again from 2008 until spring 2011. The school claims she was not fired but that her contract simply was not renewed.

The former English teacher claims that the  Rev. John Kuzmich, pastor of St. Vincent de Paul called her a “grave, immoral sinner” for her actions, however, the church denies the accusations.

The 32-year-old mother appeared on the Today show in April with her husband Brian to speak about what she has described as discrimination.

Speaking to Ann Curry she said: “It's been a very emotional time for both of us and actually my whole family. We struggled trying to wrap our minds around what's happened here.

“Just because I was such a devoted teacher, and I loved my job so much. I was just trying to expand our family and to have this happen was just -- it was awful.”

“The unusual part about this is from day one at my interview, my employer asked me when I was going to start a family and how many kids I was going to have.

“After I got pregnant with my first son, she asked me when I was going to have another child. So she made it a very personal issue from the get-go.”

Watch ‘The Today Show’’ segment below:

 

​
Nster.com
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail


12 Comments

See all comments

billie061 | May 17, 2012, 01:41 PM EDT
inability to have children is one of the factors for church annulment. Abuse whether physical or otherwise is not a factor. I got pregnant in 1981 with my first child, as a single mother I got sacked (no law in them days against being a single mom) In 1992 as I lay in a hospital bed half dead from beating from ex-husband, was told by p.p. to forgive. 2012 and 50 need no-one to dictate my life, church or anyone.

Report abuse

EphraimKibbey | May 17, 2012, 12:25 PM EDT
I believe that the inability to have children is one of the few accepted criteria for annulment of a marriage in the RCC.

Report abuse

eiriamach | May 17, 2012, 07:24 AM EDT
How many men have this experience? "at my interview, my employer asked me when I was going to start a family and how many kids I was going to have. After I got pregnant with my first son, she asked me when I was going to have another child. So she made it a very personal issue from the get-go.” That's what discrimination on the basis of sex used to look like, but in this case the employer seemed to be looking for a woman likely to become pregnant--the opposite of most discrimination. Would they fire any married woman who was not pregnant early and often?

Report abuse

EphraimKibbey | May 17, 2012, 12:23 AM EDT
Congratulations, Seanomelb! My first grandson is due in July.

Report abuse

seanomelb | May 16, 2012, 06:54 PM EDT
Those religious zealots who object to in-vitro fertilisation are ingrate throw backs. I suppose intravenous drips or manufactured drugs are also unethical. As the grandfather of twin boys I will state that in-vitro fertilisation is a miracle of modern science and made thousands of parents and grandparents very happy people.

Report abuse

jamthecat | May 16, 2012, 06:19 PM EDT
PhlutiePhan seems to think it's perfectly acceptable for the church to interfere in an individual's life and deny them the same legal protections as others. Which is interesting, considering that's what communists did in the Soviet Union. You lived according to their dictates, or you did not get a decent place to live, food enough to eat and a job. And in Communist China, the government gets to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body, as well, just like the commie-christians want to do. Obviously, some people have a problem with Democracy and self-determination and want to end it for everyone they disagree with.

Report abuse

eiriamach | May 16, 2012, 06:08 PM EDT
Medical scientists estimate that 60% of fertilized ova never implant in uterine walls and therefore never result in pregnancy, so the idea that IVF "throws away" fertilized ova, even if it were true, would not make it different from what nature does with no help at all from science. Are women sinners when their bodies spontaneously expel fertilized ova? During breastfeeding also, the uterus expels any fertilized ova, and women have been breastfeeding since the human race began. A "grave, immoral" sin? As in the conflict between advocates of evolution and creationism or the heliocentric and the geocentric system, RC rejects a benefit of science that it ought to see as a blessing.

Report abuse

Bythebay | May 16, 2012, 11:51 AM EDT
And no doubt this Diocese accepts US Federal Government money from US taxpayers?

Report abuse

PhlutiePhan | May 16, 2012, 11:31 AM EDT
The "octomom" played table tennis and eight of the ping pong balls stuck to the walls of her womb. While this is laudable in the eyes of those who think that the little zygots can be thrown away, the Church has consistently stated to the negative. IVF means that you are playing "Russian Roulette" with tiny fertilized eggs. So, how could the Church allow her to be a role model in light of her public stance against the Church? I believe that she is a sinner. However in the current clime of the media, she is a saint. That is why Princess Diana is a saint and Mother Theresa is a sinner.

Report abuse

Portia777 | May 16, 2012, 11:17 AM EDT
The Roman church has kept control over the wombmen for eons of time to control every aspect of their being especially their fertility. It might be legal under man made laws but not lawful under Universal law.

Report abuse

McNamara31 | May 16, 2012, 10:50 AM EDT
The bishops have “problems” with seventy year old nuns who have dedicated their lives to the church, problems with IVF mothers, and this week, problems with the Girl Scouts. Who's next? One thing is for sure, if there had been more females in church leadership during the cases of worldwide child abuse, it would have ended and it began and dealt with as it was...crimes. So boys, "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's(or sister’s) eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

Report abuse

Murph46 | May 16, 2012, 10:34 AM EDT
She will lose this case,not on any specific merit,but because she will find as many others ,that she is an "At will" employee-that is she serves at the will of her employer.

Report abuse

 


Feedbox
IrishCentral Mobile QR code


Log into IrishCentral with your Facebook account

or sign-in directly

E-Mail:
Password:
 Remember me Forgot my password
Not a member? Register Now!
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail