Running head: PORTFOLIO ARITFACT 2 1

Portfolio Artifact 2

Vanessa M. Alvarez

College of Southern Nevada

PORTFOLIO ARITFACT 2 2

Portfolio Artifact 2

To what extent does a public employee retain their first amendment right? That is the

question regarding the scenario against the tenured employee, Ann Griffin. While she was in a

passionate discussion with both the principal and assistant principal Freddie Watts and Jimmy

Brothers, respectively, she claimed that she “hated all black folk”. Griffin, who is white, teaches

at a school where majority of the population is that of black students. Watts questions whether

Griffin is still capable of providing the students a quality education if her viewpoints are

inflammatory. Freddie Watts feels that the best solution, as he suggested, would be the dismissal

of Griffin.

One court case that supports both Freddie Watts and Jimmy Brothers is Garcetti v.

Ceballos (2006). In this case, Ceballos was the deputy district attorney who went to his superior

after explanations for a possible inaccurate affidavit were given. After writing out his concerns

he felt they should dismiss the case. He and his superiors had a vehement meeting following his

suggestion. When his superior insisted that the trial continue, Ceballos was called to the stand to

discuss his findings about the affidavit. Ceballos then claimed that after this testimony, he faced

retaliation for speaking out against his superior. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the

opinion of the court simply put was that “the First Amendment does not prevent employees from

being disciplined for expressions they make pursuant to their professional duties”. This relates to

the case because what Griffin said during the heated exchange to her two superiors was said as

their employee who must be able to give an equitable education to all students.

Another court case that would support the two administrators is Connick v. Myers

(1983). In this Supreme Court case, Myers, who was an assistant district attorney, was told she

was transferring. Refusing, she explained multiple times her concerns and how this would affect
PORTFOLIO ARITFACT 2 3

her cases and clients. However, after being told in writing that the transfer was still happening,

Myers wrote a questionnaire that she distributed to her colleagues regarding Connick and his

management. She was then fired by Connick, and Myers retaliated by claiming her First

Amendment rights were being violated. Once this case reached the Supreme Court, in the

majority opinion, the justices claimed that most of the questions on her questionnaire were of a

private concern rather than a public one, and that what she had done most likely has affected the

working relationship amongst her colleagues and superiors that were necessary in order for it to

operate efficiently. This would benefit both Watts and Brothers in their case as what Griffin said

was not of public concern. Also, since it was released that she made that statement, it has been

claimed that she received negative reactions from her colleagues implying the efficiency in the

operation of the workplace has already been affected.

On the other hand, one court case that would support Griffin is Waters v. Churchill

(1994). In this case, an obstetrics nurse was overheard speaking to another nurse considering

transferring. In this discussion, Churchill was heard criticizing procedures in place for cross

training and discussed personal issues she had with the head nurse that implemented them. She

was then fired after an investigation about the incident took place, however, she had not been

asked about what she had said or her stance. Once this case reached the Supreme Court, there

were 4 different opinions on this matter. According to the plurality opinion in this case, also

deemed the majority opinion, Supreme Court Justice David Souter claimed, “the government

must demonstrate that its understanding of what the employee said was not only a reasonable

belief, but a truthful one”. This then brings into question Griffin’s behavior before the heated

exchange. Had she already displayed actions that proved her statement that she “hated all black

folks”, or was it truly just a statement made in the heat of the discussion?
PORTFOLIO ARITFACT 2 4

Another court case that would support Ann Griffin would be Terminiello v. Chicago

(1949). In this U.S. Supreme court case, Terminiello was a catholic priest who was holding an

event in which he made multiple incendiary remarks and condemned a variety of racial groups.

Protestors outside of the building were present and the police department in Chicago found it

difficult to maintain order. They claimed that Terminiello had violated the Chicago Breach of

Peace ordinance in place and tried to fine him, however Terminiello appealed the citation. Once

this case reached the Supreme Court, the justices not only overturned his conviction but also

went on to say that their breach of peace ordinance was unconstitutional. Justice William O.

Douglas, in the majority opinion, went on to say that free speech is “protected against censorship

or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive

evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.” This would benefit Griffin

in that her statement, while questionable, does not present a clear and present danger. If anything,

it presents public inconvenience and unrest among her colleagues.

To conclude, based on Connick v. Myers (1983) and Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006), I believe

that Freddie Watts and Jimmy Brothers have the stronger case. Through the first two cases,

verdicts were decided on the basis that a public employee may express their first amendment

right of free speech only as a private citizen or if the matter being discussed is of public concern.

The factors that implicate that Ann Griffin has failed to meet these two requirements are the

circumstances in which her statement was made: on school grounds, to her superiors, and about a

private concern. Freddie Watts has only recommended dismissal, implying that she has not been

terminated yet. If due process is followed, Griffin’s termination would be deemed just as she has

used a racially motivated statement whilst in a position over predominantly black students who

she is expected to provide an equitable education for.

PORTFOLIO ARITFACT 2 5

References

Garcetti v. Ceballos 547 U.S. 410 (2006)

Connick v. Meyers 461 U.S. 138 (1983)

Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1994)

Terminiello v. Chicago 337 US 1 (1949)