Running header: VIEWING TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1

Viewing Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Evelyn Morales-Ramirez

College of Southern Nevada

February 23, 2016

VIEWING TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITES 2

Viewing Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Being a teacher or part of a school staff comes with its own rules and laws just as any

other job. There are often situations where teachers’ rights are questioned on whether what they

say or do is justified and protected. In this specific case, Ann Griffin, who is a white tenured

teacher at a predominantly black high school whose principal and assistant principal are black,

was suggested to be fired because of a statement she made during a heated conversation with two

administrators. The statement that caused her to be recommended dismissal was regarding

blacks; she said that she hated all blacks. After many others heard about what she had said it

caused disruption at her job between both the blacks and whites. Besides causing such altercation

in the school among colleagues, the principal, Freddie Watts, thought that her dismissal was best

due to questioning her ability to treat her students fairly and without judgment seeing that most

of them were black students.

One case that would support Ann Griffin as to why she shouldn’t be dismissed is Mt.

Healthy City School District v Doyle. In this case a non-tenured teacher spoke out negatively

regarding his schools proposed teachers dress code to a local radio station. When it came to

renewing teachers’ contract his was denied renewal and he sued claiming that his nonrenewal

was merely based on his phone call to the local radio station regarding the schools proposed

teachers’ dress code. He stated that the action taken against him in the nonrenewal of his contract

was only based on the phone call that qualifies as freedom of speech which was protected under

the First Amendment. The school board then referred to other incidents that had played part in

his dismissal proving that it was not just based on the phone call. With this case the Supreme

Court came out with reasoning that an employee’s protected expression should not determine or
VIEWING TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITES 3

play a role in the employees’ continued employment. The employer must prove that there are

other factors as to why the contract is not being renewed besides the employees’ statement. The

case also resulted in the Court stating that an employer can defend their actions and themselves

from the First Amendment employee litigation by showing that the same decision would have

been made had the employee not made the statement. In the actual Mt. Healthy City School

District v. Doyle case that was able to be proven. The school board had proven that there were

other reasons as to why the teachers’ contract was not renewed besides his phone call. In Ann

Griffin’s case, there are no other reasons presented as to why she should be dismissed besides

her statement made in the conversation with the two administrators. There is no evidence, cases,

or incident providing insight to her competency as a teacher other than the statement she made

which remains protected under the Frist Amendment. There is no proof being given that if she

would have not made such statement the principal would have taken the same decision in

suggesting her dismissal.

Another case that could be used in Ann Griffins’ support is Connick v. Myers. In this

case after an assistant district attorney was dissatisfied with her proposed transfer she distributed

a survey at work among her coworkers regarding office operations and morale. After her

distribution of the survey she was terminated. With this case The Court explained that judges

must evaluate whether the form of expression is concerning a matter of public concern in its

form, context and content. The Court ruled that the survey which the assistant district attorney

had distributed was mainly related to a personal employment grievance rather than a matter of

public concern which justified her termination. Her expression was more related to a personal

employment grievance which is not protected by the First Amendment. Contrary to Myers case,

Ann Griffins’ expression was not directly correlated to a personal grievance. When evaluating
VIEWING TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITES 4

her statement by its content, context and form, it is seen that it is a matter of public concern

which is protected by the First Amendment.

Asides from the court cases Ann Griffin is a tenured teacher who has more protection

compared to if she was a non-tenured teacher. Because she is a tenured teacher she has the right

to be provided a procedural protection where she must be notified with the reasons for her

dismissal and a hearing. This is also granted to her under the fourteenth amendment which gives

her right to due process. In procedural due process before she is fired and because she is a

tenured teacher she must be granted certain procedural rights.

Moving over to the defendants’ side, Pickering v. Board of Education is a case that would

support the defendants’ side and suggestion to dismiss Ann Griffin. In the case of Pickering v.

Board of Education Pickering wrote a letter to a local newspaper where he criticized the school

boards’ fiscal policies. He made a special point in criticizing the balance of the funds between

the education and athletics programs. Subsequently, the board dismissed him because of the

letter where he also mentioned false statements that in return damaged the reputation of the

school board members and district administrators. First, The Court identified that his expression

was protected by the First Amendment. The Court then applied a balancing test. The balancing

test described that teachers could be dismissed if the expression jeopardized his/her relationship

with immediate supervisor or harmony with coworkers, interfered with teaching effectiveness or

impeded school operation. After applying a balancing test The Court stated that if

Pickerings’expressions caused negative effects in any of the areas then the board had a right to

terminate him, but since The Court did not see that as the case then Pickering was still protected.

Unlike Pickerings’ case, Ann Griffins’ statement did have negative effects in an area from the

balancing test. Her statement had the potential to jeopardize her relationship with her immediate
VIEWING TEACHERS’ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITES 5

supervisor which is her principal. Being that both the principal and assistant principal are both

black, her statement could have a negative impact in her relationship with the two. Not only did

her statement have an effect on her relationship with her supervisor, but it also caused negative

reactions among her colleagues which jeopardized the harmony with coworkers.

In conclusion, I believe that Ann Griffin should to not be dismissed as suggested by her

supervisor. Although her statement might rise negative atmosphere, ultimately she is protected

by the First Amendment. She was freely expressing herself at work with two other administrators

which is her right whether her statement was seen as negative or positive. Besides being

protected by the first amendment she had no other reported issues that could contribute to her

suggested dismissal. There were no reports of her treating her students unfairly or other incidents

that jeopardizes her effectiveness as a teacher.