Re: CA Teacher Fired for Refusing to Use Preferred Pronouns; Wins Big in Lawsuit

On Thu, 16 May 2024 09:08:40 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Thu, 16 May 2024 01:00:19 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
 

A California school district has settled a lawsuit with a teacher who says
she was fired over her religious beliefs after she refused to use students'
preferred pronouns, attorneys say.
 
The Jurupa Unified School District in Riverside County agreed to pay
$360,000 to Jessica Tapia, her attorneys at Advocates for Faith & Freedom
said in a May 14 news release.
 
The settlement closes a federal lawsuit Tapia filed last May that alleged
the district's decision to fire Tapia violated her civil and 1st Amendment
rights, according to the lawsuit.
 

Was she fired because she refused to use he/her or he/her/god knows
what?

>
They gave her a letter with something like three infractions, including
that, that she had to fix or lose her job. She sent a return letter saying
she wouldn’t, the big one seems to be that she was proselytizing to her
classes, and she said as a Christian, she couldn’t stop that (I don’t know
what kind of Christian denomination requires that).

It's a portion of the Protestant faith believes in sharing the "good
news" of Christianity. Evangelical Christians believe it is their duty
to share their faith much like a Cross Fit convert believes they must
convert everyone else to following the Cross Fit way.

As with everyone else some carry it too far and start to push their
ideas on the unwilling. Where I believe the idea is to be willing and
able to spread the faith but not to try to push it on someone. I'm
only familiar with it from the Southern Baptist tradition but they
(Evangelicals) can be found in every Protestant .. um.. denomination.

They told her the accommodations she was asking violated California law.
She refused to comply. They fired her.  It’s unclear to me if they
specified the exact cause of the firing.
>
They eventually paid her a chunk of change, but they refused to admit wrong
doing, and part of the settlement is that she could never try to work for
the school district again.

That last bit seems a bit odd of a request. Surely they could have
just black listed her name so she couldn't get a job in the district.

>

My question is of course designed to see if her "crime" was the same
one that brought Jordan Peterson to prominence or something else?
(Peterson said he'd use he/her as desired but wouldn't use a made up
pronoun)

>
Given who sponsored her lawsuit, I would say the main thing was the
proselytizing.
>
While the article doesn’t say it they imply she probably only had problems
with one student about the pronouns.