EDU  210:  PORTFOLIO  ARTIFACT  #2   1  

Portfolio Artifact #2

Jade DeLile

College of Southern Nevada

EDU  210:  PORTFOLIO  ARTIFACT  #2   2  
 
Scenario

Ann Griffin, a white tenured teacher who taught at a predominately black school, had a

discussion with two administrators and told them that she “hated all black folks.” Her statement

was spread throughout the school, which caused a negative reaction amongst her colleagues. The

principal, Freddie Watts, and assistant principal, Jimmy Brothers, whom are both African-

Americans, were both very bothered about the situation. The principal suggested that Griffin

should be dismissed based on concerns regarding her ability to treat students fairly and her

judgment and competency as a teacher.

Pro Support

In this scenario, if it were to be brought into court, the administrators could bring up the

case of Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983). During the Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138

(1983) case, it was argued that the employee was speaking on matters of public concern, but it

was found that it wasn’t a public concern, and the Court concluded that it was not protected by

the First Amendment (“Connick v. Myers,” n.d.). The administrators could argue that this was a

matter of disrupting school functionality and would have an effect on the work environment.

Another case that would support the schools’ decision to dismiss Ann Griffin from her

duties is Quinn v. Board of Education of this City of Chicago, 573 U.S. (2014). The employee’s

statement would not have outweighed the employer’s responsibility to manage its internal affairs

and their effectiveness to service the public. Meaning, Griffin’s statement would have a huge

negative effect on the employer, and thus, lose their efficient and effective service to the public

(“801 F. 2d 687 – Daniels v. D Quinn E,” n.d.).

Con Support
EDU  210:  PORTFOLIO  ARTIFACT  #2   3  
 
Ann Griffin would have a couple of cases that could protect her from getting fired from

the school. First off, she would argue that her First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment has

been infringed. The first court case that she could use in her favor is Pickering v. Board of

Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968). This court case would protect her First Amendment right. She

could argue that she was simply speaking as a citizen and not as a public employee, and she

didn’t target any specific person.

Another court case that she could use to assist her is the Mt. Healthy City School District

Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977). This case can give her the argument that her

statement plays a “substantial role” in her dismissal from the school. The only way the employer

could protect themselves from this argument is if they can prove that they would have made the

same decision in the absence of the statement that was made by Griffin. According to the

scenario, there was no other information on other racist remarks she has made in the past, or any

other issues that the school had with her prior to this incident (“Mt. Healthy City School District

Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977),” n.d.).

Conclusion

After reading multiple court cases and gathering information, I’ve decided that I would

side with the school, and Ann Griffins ground for dismissal would be the right choice. The

Connick v. Myers case gave a lot of support to the school in regard to this matter, as it protected

the school from having Griffin argue that her First Amendment has been violated. I think a lot of

school districts lose to teachers because of the right to freedom of speech. Anyone can say that

they are practicing their freedom of speech, but since Griffins’ statement was not a matter of

public concern, the First Amendment can’t protect her.

EDU  210:  PORTFOLIO  ARTIFACT  #2   4  
 
Even though there is a couple of cases that could help Griffins case, the main case that

could back fire on her is the Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968). The school

could argue that the statement was not a matter of public concern, thus, failing the Pickering test

(“Public Employees and Free Speech,” 2011).

Not only are there cases working against Griffin, but the main thing is that her statement

would be a disruption to the educational interest of the school district because if the public finds

out about what she has said, then it would have a negative impact on the school, and in-turn, the

school district.

She may be a competent educator, but she has violated the trust of those around her, and

effecting her work environment in a negative way. Her actions would make her unfit to perform

her duties as her statement was harmful and hurtful to others. That’s why I think the court will

rule in favor of the school district.

EDU  210:  PORTFOLIO  ARTIFACT  #2   5  
 
References

801 F2d 687 Daniels v. D Quinn E | OpenJurist. (n.d.). Retrieved September 11, 2018, from

https://openjurist.org/801/f2d/687/daniels-v-d-quinn-e

Carmalita B. Daniels, Appellant, v. Ben D. Quinn, Individually and in His Official Capacity

Assuperintendent of the New Bern-craven County Boardof Education; E. Susan Hill;

Newbern-craven County Board Ofeducation, Appellees, 801 F.2d 687 (4th Cir. 1986).

(n.d.). Retrieved September 11, 2018, from https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-

courts/F2/801/687/66503/

Connick v. Myers. (n.d.). Retrieved September 11, 2018, from

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/461/138

Connick v. Myers. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved September 10, 2018, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1982/81-1251

Feda, M. (n.d.). Public employees and free speech | Illinois State Bar Association. Retrieved

September 11, 2018, from

https://www.isba.org/sections/laboremploymentlaw/newsletter/2011/12/publicemployees

andfreespeech

First Amendment Schools: The Five Freedoms - Court Case. (n.d.-a). Retrieved September 11,

2018, from http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=276

First Amendment Schools: The Five Freedoms - Court Case. (n.d.-b). Retrieved September 11,

2018, from http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=317

Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved September 10, 2018, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-1278
EDU  210:  PORTFOLIO  ARTIFACT  #2   6  
 
Public employees and free speech | Illinois State Bar Association. (n.d.). Retrieved September

11, 2018, from

https://www.isba.org/sections/laboremploymentlaw/newsletter/2011/12/publicemployees

andfreespeech