The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled Monday that Belmont Abbey College discriminated against women, and then retaliated against faculty members who filed a charge of employment discrimination — all over the issue of contraception.
The brouhaha started when the college ended its longtime policy of including contraceptive coverage in its employee health insurance plan. Afterward, some Belmont Abbey faculty members filed an EEOC discrimination suit against the college. At that point, the college’s administration sent out a letter naming the eight faculty members who filed charges with the EEOC.
The EEOC ruled that the college discriminated against women, since the refusal to cover the cost of birth control pills would cost women employees more hardship. The commission also ruled that the college’s naming of the plaintiffs was unlawful retaliation, explaining that “the identity of an individual who has filed a charge should be protected with confidentiality during the Commission’s investigation.”
The President of the college, Dr. William Thierfelder, sent a statement to the Board of Trustees in which he said the college will appeal the decision, and that “we remain committed to ensuring that all of the College’s policies and practices follow the teachings of the Catholic Church, which includes valuing all life and treating individuals with dignity and respect, and providing equal opportunities for all.” I guess Thierfelder forgot about the “dignity and respect” part when he sent out the memo naming the faculty members who filed charges.
A faculty member involved in the dispute, in a post on the BlueNC Web site, also claims that Thierfelder “and his minions have launched a smear campaign against us on right-wing Catholic blogs.”
Here’s some advice for BAC’s President from a former student at that college, and a Catholic: Instead of enforcing “the teachings of the Catholic Church,” how about supporting “the reality of the Catholic Church,” which is that a vast majority of Catholics in America think the Church’s teachings on contraception are misguided, at best, and thus they feel free to ignore them completely.
This article appears in Aug 11-18, 2009.
I wonder what’s the child care situation at Belmont Abbey? Do they offer free or low cost child care facilities on campus for faculty as well as any baby mama students??? Is there much Big Brother/Big Sister involvment by administration big wigs? How many foster children (including those from abused/neglect situations) are living with those in the administration who dropped contraceptive coverage from the insurance plan? I ain’t good at math, but I know it costs less to prevent pregnancy than to let the buns pop from the oven whenever the mood strikes.
The Catholic Church needs a whiff of reality incense. Most of its flock are using contraception. If they weren’t the birth rate among them would be off the chain. It’s amazing how pro-lifers fight to the death for the fetus but once said fetus becomes a functioning person, these lifers support gutting every social program that many of these children and their parents need.
This does not surprise me in the least.They practically beatified one of their own alumnae pimps, and Karl Rove trainee, Rep. Patrick Mchenry, at a recent homecoming! The little Real Estate Shill has allegedly taken money from Countrywide! There is way more scandal at the Nullius,but my better nature prevents me from making further comments!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_McHenry
stupid lawsuit….
EEOC complaints are not public record although if a settlement is reached, part of that may be. Publishing the names has a chilling effect on others who might consider filing a complaint on this or other issues. President Thierfelder has alleged in interviews that the eight identified themselves to the media before the college released their names: this is untrue. Some may have, but the rights of each should be respected.
The Wall Street Journal opinion essay by Patrick Reilly falsely claims that the NC Dept of Insurance issued the college a religious exemption. They did not, according to the letter from the Dept of Insurance that the College distributed to employees. The DOI just refused to make a ruling.
It is true. The DOI claims that they are unable to make a ruling on a religious exemption at all because of the NC Constitution and a case called Harris v. Matthews (2007).
We might ask how the idea got around that the Abbey got a religious exemption. I don’t know, but someone must have put the notion in Patrick Reilly’s head. Who might he have been talking to?
Economists believe that all benefits beyond salary are, in fact, substitutes for wages or salary, which would otherwise have been paid in cash. I think the college telling people what they can spend their benefits on is quite presumptuous, bordering on the authoritarian. I am not, and have never been, an employee of theirs, however.
I think it is a shame that this dispute is overshadowing the reality that Belmont Abbey is a fine place to pursue the liberal arts. It has many fine departments, and a diverse faculty and student body full of vigorous ideas. I only hope they get past this trouble soon.
You might be harmed if your company doesn’t provide you with a free car, but unless they are providing someone with a free car who is of a different race, sex, age, or national origin than you, you cannot sue.
In this case, the women have been provided with cars that break down, because they don’t have the proper accoutrements. The men have cars that are fully equipped, so they never break down. How is that fair?
What companies offer their employees is to a great extent, determined by law. Just as we have a miminum wage that is the law of the land, there are also minimum non-discrimination requirements regarding benefits. Just as you couldn’t provide black employees with one benefits plan, and white employees another, you cannot provide men with an insurance plan that fits their needs, and women another that doesn’t match their needs.