ILNews

Suit against Catholic diocese alleging firing after fertility treatment proceeds

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A former teacher who claims her contract at St. Vincent de Paul School in Fort Wayne was not renewed because she underwent in vitro fertilization treatments may proceed with a suit against the Catholic diocese.

Federal Judge Robert L. Miller Jr. on Monday dismissed the diocese’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and lifted a stay on discovery in Emily Herx v. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend Inc. and St. Vincent de Paul School, 1:12-CV-122, in the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in Fort Wayne.

Emily Herx sued in April under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act. She claims she was let go after teaching literature for nearly eight years because she underwent in vitro fertilization treatments to try to have a baby.  

The suit alleges that when Herx requested time off in 2011 for a second fertilization treatment, she was asked to meet with Monsignor John Kuzmich, the pastor of St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church. The suit claims Kuzmich said another teacher had complained and that afterward Herx’s contract was not renewed because of “improprieties related to church teachings or law.”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined the school terminated Herx’s employment in violation of Title VII after she filed a discrimination complaint.

Miller also on Monday set a telephone status and scheduling hearing for 10 a.m. March 21 before Magistrate Judge Roger Cosbey.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT