School tech: Employer wrong to reprimand me over prayer talk

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press


Updated 3:40 pm, Tuesday, May 16, 2017


AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) — A high school worker filed a federal complaint Tuesday against her school district, saying officials were being discriminatory when they reprimanded her for telling a co-worker that she'd pray for him.

Toni Richardson, a special education technician, contends she was "interrogated" by school officials about the remark in which she intended to offer encouragement to a colleague who goes to her church. She was later warned against using "phrases that integrate public and private belief systems."

"The school reprimanded me because my words, spoken privately to a colleague, involved religious content," she wrote in her complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Augusta Schools Superintendent James Anastasio did not immediately respond to a request for comment.





Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/education/article/School-tech-Employer-wrong-to-reprimand-me-over-11150528.php

[left-of-center2012]

1. From the link ...

"No one should be threatened with losing their job for privately telling a co-worker, 'I will pray for you,'"

I agree with that, unless someone can prove it otherwise.

[unblock]

2. i'm not seeing how the school became aware of the conversation

but the fact that it did makes it sound like the conversation wasn't as private as they thought it was....

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

15. That's what I'm thinking. Doesn't sound like a private conversation. n/t

[cstanleytech]

3. Article lacks alot of details like was she on the clock or off it? If on it then

it was probably inappropriate of her and she might have deserved the reprimand and she needs to accept that she made a mistake if thats the case she should be thankful they only reprimanded her and didnt fire her.

[haele]

4. If these words were spoken privately, how was there a complaint?

Even if it were casually said in, say, a teacher's lounge, office, or in the hallway? Who would have complained, especially since they went to the same church?

Even the most rigid anti-theists I know wouldn't have had enough of a problem with her simply saying "I'll pray for you" to a fellow congregant to make a complaint. If directed at them, it would have been a different story, but it apparently wasn't.

Unless she had been previously warned about proselytizing - or she somehow created a safety issue by leaving her classroom unattended to loudly proclaim her blessings on the co-worker - or if that co-worker felt intimidated by her attentions- there shouldn't have been an issue for the school district to address.

We're just hearing her side.

This smacks too much of "War on Christmas" thinking.

Haele

[TheBlackAdder]

5. After reading up on the Dover, PA BOE Intelligent Design lawsuit, I view this with suspicion.

.

It seems to be something made to delegitimize or soften the barriers of church and state.


If you research the Dover, PA ID case, or even watch Nova's Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial for a brief synopsis, you'll see the lengths of deceit and trickery the creationist types will stoop to, in order to negate or weaken this barrier.


Extremes, which are quite possible and can not be ruled out, cast a negative light on government, the separation of church and state and provide another assault on the educational legitimacy we are seeing constantly under barrage by religious zealots.


.

[LiberalLovinLug]

8. Yup, seems to me like its made-for-Facebook fake news story

How much you wanna bet we'll hear in the next days more details that discredit this teacher's story. As some have said, how did a "private conversation" even be complained about? I have a very hard time thinking that one person whispering to another person or otherwise in what would be deemed a private space, to a person that goes to the same church, telling them "I will be praying for you" would even be alerted on.

But the story will be out there re-posted thousands of times on other deplorables FB pages, by the time the story is discredited or explained properly in context. Its becomes a straw man "fact". Where it is either believed outright no matter what the libtard fake news says the next day, or it is put in the 'where there's smoke there's fire' category. But in either case all of these tiny thin straws are piled up one at a time until it breaks the camel's back for conservative voters.

[progree]

11. Very well said (n/t)

[TheBlackAdder]

12. Very well written.

[jpak]

6. Bless her hert

[progree]

7. Flaming atheist here, and member of Americans United For Separation of Church and State

(au.org) and read damn near every article in nearly every issue of Church and State Magazine,

and I think the reprimand is absurd.

I assume the co-worker (who was a fellow congregant) wasn't the one who complained. So I assume it was some nut who overheard one co-worker tell the other, "I'll pray for you", and felt some sick need to make an enormous hoo-hah about it.

It's all a matter of scale. How about a little common sense and decency (do you really want to put a black mark on a fellow employee's record and even jeopardize her job FOR THAT????). I've probably said some things that a totally perfect person in a totally perfect world should not have ideally said ...

Now if the worker went on and on about Jesus's healing grace and salvation and pulled out the Bible in the middle of the break room etc., that would obviously be something else.

[elleng]

9. Agreed, ABSURD!

(Agnostic here.)

[progree]

10. I'll pray for you (n/t)

[elleng]

13. And I for you!

Pray/Wish/Salute,

And I say, Thanks!

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

16. I think the problem is the conversation obviously wasn't all that private.

There may have been students present and perhaps one of the students complained. This woman sounds a little obnoxious to me. She was only reprimanded anyhow, but she decides to make this a public thing that is getting picked up by the media. That's not a good way to resolve a minor issue with your employer. They didn't fire her, but now I bet they'll be watching her a lot more closely and looking for other reasons to get rid of her because she did this.

[progree]

19. I think it is the school district, not the employee, who is being a little obnoxious to me

Actually, extremely obnoxious and totally off-base.

If she has a gofundme campaign, I will ecstatically contribute to it. Her reaction was entirely appropriate and I am enormously grateful that she chose to fight it -- how else to stop this kind of ridiculous silliness?

Someone overheard her say to a colleague and fellow church congregant, "I will pray for you". Oh wow wow wow!!! (I've read a couple of other versions of the stories and I found nothing more than that as far as the "religious content" of the conversation). A written reprimand for that? Seriously?

-Progree, flaming atheist and long-time member of Americans United For Separation of Church and State

[Demonaut]

14. damn, I thought chewing the shape of a gun out of a slice of balonie was too much

it is too much

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

17. Some more info at this local newspaper link.

The woman is an ed tech, not a teacher, btw. I don't know if she gets union protection being an ed tech.

http://www.centralmaine.com/2017/05/16/augusta-ed-tech-says-school-department-discriminated-against-her-for-telling-colleague-i-will-pray-for-you/

"In her complaint, Richardson, a special education technician at Cony High School, said she was disciplined by the school department after trying to offer words of encouragement to a co-worker, who also attends her church, by telling him she would pray for him. She said she was later “interrogated” by school officials, who sent her a “coaching memorandum” telling her what she can and cannot say in school.

While announcing her complaint Tuesday afternoon, her attorney handed out copies of that memorandum, in which a school official referred to Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, which prohibits public institutions from favoring certain religions.

“In the future, it is imperative you do not use phrases that integrate public and private belief systems when in public schools,” wrote the official, whose name was redacted from the copy of the memorandum. “This coaching memorandum is not considered disciplinary in nature and will not be included in your personnel file. If you have any additional interactions that are deemed unprofessional by administration, you will be subject to disciplinary action and/or possibly dismissal.”"

[progree]

18. And yet more.

Last edited Wed May 17, 2017, 11:42 PM - Edit history (4)

Dys, the attorney from the First Liberty Institute, said Tuesday afternoon that, even though the official said the memo would not go in Richardson’s personnel file, the threat of possible dismissal suggested that it essentially was going in her file.

Obviously it is going to some file. You think they wrote that, sent it, and didn't keep a copy?

“All I’m asking for is for the memo to be taken away,” Richardson said during a brief remarks at the State House. “It makes me feel nervous and scared.”

Richardson provided more information in a written complaint, a copy of which is available on the First Liberty Institute website.

In a statement released Tuesday afternoon, the Augusta School Department said it “recognizes the rights of employees to hold and express religious beliefs and it never was our intent to unlawfully restrict those rights.”

Well, gee then. What did she do wrong again?

The department said it rewrote its memorandum to Richardson to “make this crystal clear”

http://www.pressherald.com/2017/05/16/augusta-ed-tech-says-school-department-discriminated-against-her-for-telling-colleague-i-will-pray-for-you/

Should be a very interesting memo - "you are free to express religious beliefs, however, comforting a colleague and fellow church congregant by uttering the obscenity, "I will pray for you", is a crime against humanity for the following reasons .... (a) .... (b) ... (c) .... "