Pualani Gomes Period 6 10/06/11 Editorial: Three years ago, a teacher took a disability leave for several months,

and the school she worked for notified her that if her leave lasted more than six months, shed be terminated. When Cheryl Perich (the teacher) was cleared by her doctor to return to work the principle rebuffed her in spite of her doctors note. Ms. Perich then warned of making a formal complain under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the church fired her for reasons of insubordination and disruptive behavior, saying that she had Damaged, beyond repair her relationship with the school by threatening to take legal action. If this were to have happened at any business or non-religious school, theyd be in trouble for retaliation against an employee exerting legal rights, and only at the end of firing Perich did the church put a religious cast on her termination, by saying that her ministry at the school was terminated. In court on Wednesday, it was argued that she was fired for violating a Lutheran tenet against appeal outside the church. Its obvious that the author of this editorial, Suzy Parker, is siding with Ms. Perich, for she states a lot of information that casts the religious school/church into a disbelieving light. For example, when the principle rebuffed Perich from coming back to work, Parker stated that Perich had a doctors note clearing her of her medical leave, yet she was still rebuffed. This makes it sound as though the school doesnt care about Perich, but just wants her gone. By the way that Parker writes this article, Im thinking that the favors arent very high for the religious school (whos name isnt stated). To me, I feel that Cheryl Perichs rights werent respected in this issue, for it does sound like the religious school just wanted her gone. By only stating in court three years later that she was released for violating a Lutheran tenet, saying that her ministry at the school was terminated, it makes me think that theyre only covering their selves by saying things thatll make their actions justifiable. Im astonished that this has happened, because its terrible to think that because someone fell ill with narcolepsy and had to take a leave of absence, they ended up being fired by the principle unlawfully. I would think that because she hadnt been able to make the fall term, thats what substitutes are for, but I dont understand why they wouldnt allow her back.