Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Artifact 2
Artifact 2
Artifact 2
Arizbeth Zavala
EDU 210
ARTIFACT #2 2
Abstract
Established in the Constitution are the First and Fourteenth Amendments which partake a critical
role in education law. The First Amendment, grants the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and
religion. The Fourteenth Amendment contains two clauses: The Equal Protection Clause and the
Due Process Clause, which specifically pertains to school litigation. As described in the
textbook, Legal Rights of Teachers and Students, due process ensures fundamental fairness if the
government threatens an individual’s life, liberty, or property interests (pg. 7). As we study
education law, it is essential to understand the limitations of the First Amendment because it
applies differently to teachers, who are state employees and can be disciplined. In addition,
knowledge of the guarantees of the Due Process Clause is important because it allows teachers to
ensure comprehension of these amendments so that we are prepared when dictating how to
During a heated conversation with both principal and assistant principal, a tenured
teacher by the name of Anna Griffin proclaimed that she “hated all black folks.” When word
spread of her comments, it provoked unfavorable reactions from colleagues. The principal,
Freddie Watts, then recommended her dismissal, based on unease regarding her ability to treat all
students equally and just. Additionally, the principal also questioned her judgement and
Although educators share the same constitutional rights listed under the First Amendment
as ordinary citizens, they must keep in mind their speech is not protected once they are clocked
in and have begun performing their duties. If a teacher is dismissed and she/he believes it
resulted from expression, the teacher can try to sue the school district using their due process
right listed under the Fourteenth Amendment. If the case surpasses state court, the Supreme
Court must then rely on previous cases influenced by freedom of speech to reach a verdict.
Preceding court cases like Pickering vs. Board of Education, Garcetti vs. Ceballos, Mt. Healthy
City School district vs. Doyle and Givhan vs. Western Line Consolidated School District, either
support the dismissal or the reinstatement of Anna Griffin. Based on these court cases and our
judgement as Nevada education law students, we must conclude whether the Supreme Court
Defendant’s Defense
The court does not deny teachers their right to express themselves as private citizens.
However, teachers have the responsibility to ensure that what they express does not create a
hostile work environment nor does it interfere with their ability to teach. In the 1968 case,
Pickering v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court acknowledged that teachers have a First
ARTIFACT #2 4
Amendment right to broadcast their opinions on matters of public concern. In this case, Pickering
wrote a letter to a local newspaper criticizing the school board’s allocation of funds between
education and sports. Initially he was dismissed and the Illinois courts approved his dismissal.
However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the state courts because they assessed that
Pickering’s expression did not hinder his classroom performance or relationship between his
supervisor and fellow colleagues. The court also noted that given his position as a teacher,
Pickering could formulate an informed opinion on the allotment of the funds without fear of
reprisal (Cambron, McCarthy, & Eckes, 2014). In the situation of Anna Griffin, her expression
of hatred towards black people leaked and caused negative reactions from her coworkers, which
could have led to animosity and ultimately created an unfriendly work environment.
Furthermore, although not mentioned, it can be assumed that if her expression was disclosed to
students, they would also react unfavorably and possibly disrespect her as their superior.
Additionally, her type of expression did not formulate an informed opinion or bring up a concern
that could interest other private citizens. Because her words created a detrimental effect, the
Pickering ruling would not apply to Anna Griffin and the Supreme Court would uphold her
dismissal.
In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Supreme Court determined that it should first be considered
whether the employee is speaking as a private citizen or as an employee because “if speaking as
2014).” In this case, Ceballos was denied a promotion and was retaliated against for writing a
memorandum arguing that a deputy sheriff may have lied in the search warrant affidavit.
Regarding Anna Griffin, the court would use Garcetti v. Ceballos to conclude that she was
speaking as a paid employee when she articulated that she “hated all black folks,” thus allowing
ARTIFACT #2 5
her employer to discipline her. The Supreme Court would reason that Griffin was speaking as a
Plaintiff’s Defense
Despite her dismissal due to unprotected expression, Anna Griffin could try to apply the
1977 court case of Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle to defend herself and claim that she
was fired on the sole reason of expression. In Mt. Healthy v. Doyle, the Supreme Court
“established that a teacher can be disciplined or dismissed if sufficient cause exists independent
of the exercise of protected speech (Cambron, McCarthy, & Eckes pg. 234).” In this case, a
nontenured teacher did not have his contract renewed after he made a telephone call to a radio
station commenting on a proposed grooming code. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the
district because they proved there was enough evidence besides the phone call to justify the
teacher’s nonrenewal, especially since he had made inappropriate gestures to several female
students. Considering that the school district did not mention other reasons for dismissal, Anna
Griffin would have to prove that her speech was constitutionally protected and that there were no
other reasons to substantiate her dismissal. If the Supreme Court found her expression to be
protected, they would then shift the burden to the school board to demonstrate that there was
Similarly, in the 1979 court case of Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District,
a teacher, Bessie Givhan did not have her contract renewed after she had a couple secluded
conversations with the principal “expressing her belief that the school district’s practices and
policies were racially discriminatory (Jernigan).” Givhan sued the school district arguing that her
employment was terminated for exercising her First Amendment right of freedom of speech.
ARTIFACT #2 6
Although the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the district, the Supreme Court ruled that
public employees do not automatically lose their First Amendment protections when
communicating in private forums (Jernigan). Anna Griffin could allege that her freedom of
speech was violated because she confided in her principal during a private meeting and did not
expect her words to be heard by third parties. The Court would then have to evaluate her
expression and determine whether it affected normal operations of the school and her job
performance. If the court assessed that her speech did not impede any school functions, Anna
Assessment of Outcome
Unfortunately, Anna Griffin committed an irreversible mistake when she blurted out loud
that she” hated all black folks” in front of both her principal and assistant principal. Although she
is free to express herself like any other citizen would, she spoke in the wrong place at the wrong
time. Because Anna Griffin is a teacher and employee of the school district, she subjected herself
to dismissal alike Ceballos in the Garcetti case. Moreover, the Pickering rule would only apply to
her if the expression were of public interest. In her case, it was not. Taking into consideration the
adverse effect of her words around campus and that she spoke as a public employee in a private
forum, the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the principal and approve the recommendation
of her dismissal.
Conclusion
To reiterate, the First Amendment gives citizens the constitutional right of freedom of
speech. However, as educators working for the school district, it is imperative to remember that
freedom of expression may not be protected upon the arrival to school grounds. As previously
mentioned, Anna Griffin self-inflicted her dismissal by not recognizing that her expression
ARTIFACT #2 7
would harm her current stance with the school district and would negatively affect her
relationships with superiors and coworkers. To justify her dismissal, the Supreme Court would
use Pickering v. Board of Education to recognize that teachers have First Amendment rights only
when voicing public concerns. Additionally, they would rely on Garcetti vs. Ceballos to affirm
that when employees speak following official duties, the Constitution would not protect them
from being disciplined by their employers. If Anna Griffin suspected that her freedom of speech
was violated, she could use her Fourteen Amendment right of due process to defend herself. The
legal team on her behalf could use Mt. Healthy v. Doyle to prove that her dismissal was only
based on the comment made, with no other independent reasons. The court case Givhan v.
Western Line Consolidated School District could also aid Anna Griffin by suggesting that her
comment was confided to the principal behind closed doors. Nonetheless, based on the current
evidence and comparison to the above mentioned court cases, the Supreme Court would rule in
References
Cambron-McCabe, N.H., McCarthy, M.M., & Eckes, S. (2014). Legal Rights of Teachers and
Jernigan, M.J. (n.d.). Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District. Retrieved April 8,
School-District