Edwina Rogers is suing the SCA.

Edwina Rogers is suing the SCA. May 29, 2015

Hemant reports on Edwina Rogers suing the Secular Coalition for America which fired her as its executive director last year.  After she was terminated Camp Quest Director Amanda Metskas took over the position on a temporary basis.  As Hemant says:

Rogers claims that SCA President Amanda Metskas — who “envied Plaintiff” — wanted the higher salary that came with Rogers’ position. It also alleges that the SCA Education Fund’s Treasurer, Roy Speckhardt of the American Humanist Association, had ulterior motives:

[By replacing Rogers with Metskas,] Speckhardt would be able to diminish the lobbying portfolio of SCA and thereby increase and enhance his own organization’s lobbying visibility within the secular community. Additionally, Speckhardt would not be held accountable for his lack of financial oversight that permitted the embezzlement to incur and continue.

Sadly, it’s hard to say how a lawsuit will turn out, but the idea that Metskas wanted Rogers’ position is absurd.  Amanda loves her work with Camp Quest, she loves working with kids.  I honestly can only envision her taking the position temporarily because of love for the organization, not because she wanted it on any permanent basis.  Indeed, though the lawsuit claims Metskas wanted the position the truth is that Metskas never even applied for it after the fact.

It should also be noted that Rogers is in charge of the freshly-created Secular Policy Institute which is essentially trying to do many of the same things as the SCA (which means they’re competing for donations with them).  It always strikes me as somewhat suspect when somebody is suing what it is, in essence, a competitor.

If Rogers was mistreated in her firing, I hope that gets taken care of.  However, she’s not doing herself any favors in my mind by asserting something so patently and ridiculously untrue as Amanda Metskas, who is one of the kindest and most moral people I’ve ever encountered (and who supported Rogers to my face when Rogers was initially hired, despite my skepticism), maliciously undermining her for a position Metskas had no intention of pursuing.


An anonymous source familiar with the situation has informed me that Edwina Rogers was an at-will employee, meaning there was no contract to breach.  Sufficient reason to fire her would be “we want to.”  That doesn’t mean that this is why she was fired, but suing for breach of contract seems a little silly.


Browse Our Archives