Running head: First Amendment Rights of Teachers 1

First Amendment Rights of Teachers

Erin A, DeSelms

College Of Southern Nevada

First Amendment Rights of Teachers 2

Abstract

Teachers also have rights, and one of those rights is freedom of speech, protected under

the First Amendment. However, under certain circumstances, like being on the clock, speaking

regarding a personal grievance, or speaking on public matter can have an impact on whether or

not that speech is protected. Ann Griffin is filing a suit against her school district for dismissing

her after she made a comment about hating “all black folks” to her African American

administrators. After taking a look at major landmark cases regarding First Amendment rights, I

have come to the conclusion that Ms. Griffin’s speech was not protected and therefore would be

dismissed as a teacher from the district.

​ eachers, First Amendment, rights, speech, freedom.

Keywords: T
First Amendment Rights of Teachers 3

First Amendment Rights of Teachers

In this case we see a black principal, Freddie Watts, and vice principal, Jimmy Brothers,

who have suggested the dismissal of a white tenured teacher, Ann Griffin, because of remarks

she had made to them regarding hating “all black folks” during a heated conversation. There

could be a number of possibilities on the outcome of this case. This tenured teacher could be

protected because of her tenure or the First Amendment. Teacher’s, like other citizens of the

United States, are protected under the first amendment, under certain circumstances. There are

many cases that support this teacher’s possible claim, but many that would weigh in the favor of

the administrators.

In this situation, the First Amendment rights stated in the Constitution would apply. The

teacher, or plaintiff, could state that her First Amendment rights have been violated after she was

fired because of something she said. The First Amendment states all citizens have a right to free

speech. Depending on how the Court rules, this teacher could be protected under her First

Amendment rights.

In the case we’re looking at the plaintiff is claiming that she was terminated because she

said she “hated all black folks”. This, the plaintiff claims, is protected speech under the First

Amendment. The first case I want to look at is ​Pickering v. Board of Education​. In this landmark

case The Supreme Court acknowledged that teachers have the First Amendment right to free
First Amendment Rights of Teachers 4

speech as long as it relates to matters of public concern. Pickering alleged that he was dismissed

from the school district because of a letter he wrote a letter to a local newspaper airing his

concerns about the school board. In this case, Pickering was speaking on public matter because it

had to do with funds allocating and the public had a right to know what was going on in their

community, The Supreme Court upheld that Pickering had a First Amendment right to talk about

public concerns, especially because he was a teacher who knew more about the district and the

board than a regular citizen might not know. In this case we see a teacher who won their case

because they were protected under the First Amendment. In our case involving the two black

administrators our teacher may be protected under the First Amendment if she was speaking on

something of public interest. Ms. Griffin would be able to testify that her words are protected

under the First Amendment.

The second case I want to look at is ​Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle​. In this

case a teacher was dismissed on the grounds that he made a call to a local radio station to discuss

the teacher grooming code at his school. He was also dismissed for making obscene gestures to

female students. While the court acknowledged Doyle was protected under the First Amendment,

there were other factors that warranted the dismissal from the district. Based upon the ​Mt.

Healthy City School District v. Doyle ​our case involving Ann Griffin, she would be able to keep

her job. The court would place the burden of finding evidence that the speech is protected on the

teacher and once that proof is established, the burden would then be on the defendant, in our case

the school district who dismissed the teacher. Ann Griffin could say that she was fired only

because of her saying she “hates all black folks”. She could say that she is protected under the

First Amendment because she has a right to free speech. The burden would then be on the district
First Amendment Rights of Teachers 5

to provide proof that Ms. Griffin was fired for other reasons other than the words spoken to her

administrators. If they could not provide that evidence, according to ​Mt. Healthy v. Doyle​, Ann

Griffin would be allowed to keep her job.

In this case against Ms. Griffin, our defendant, which in this case would most likely be

the school district she was dismissed from, would be claiming her dismissal was warranted and

there are a couple ways they could claim this. First, we can take a look at the ​Mt. Healthy v.

Doyle c​ ase from the other side. If Ms. Griffin was able to prove that her speech was protected the

burden would then be on the district to provide evidence that she was dismissed for reasons other

than her protected speech. If the district was able to provide this proof, Ann Griffin would lose

her job. The district could provide evidence than Ms. Griffin was acting unbecoming a teacher,

much like in the ​Mt. Healthy v. Doyle​ case, and the court would uphold her dismissal.

The second case I’d like to reference,​ Connick v. Myers​, the Supreme Court made a

decision that would impact the way teachers could prevail in court cases regarding free speech

and the First Amendment. This case does not have anything to do with education, but it did cause

the Court to take into consideration the form, context, and content of the expression when

“assessing whether it relates to public matters”. (​Teachers’ Substantive Constitutional Rights

235) The defendant in the case against Ann Griffin, could testify that her speech was not

protected because it was said during school hours to her direct supervisor. This speech would not

be a matter of public concern because of where, when, and the context of what was said.

According to this case, the defendant would win and the Court would uphold Ms. Griffin’s

dismissal.
First Amendment Rights of Teachers 6

In​ Garcetti v. Ceballos​ a decision was handed down based upon whether the employee

was speaking as a private citizen or as an employee. After this case, the Court's first

consideration is now whether the employee was speaking as a private, concerned citizen of the

community, or as an employee who has a personal grievance. In the case Ms. Griffin is bringing

upon the school district, she was speaking about as an employee regarding the administrators she

is working with. This would create a hostile and stressful work environment. This teacher was on

the clock speaking to her direct supervisor. According to ​Garcetti v. Ceballos,​ we first have to

take this into account. Since Ms. Griffin was speaking as an employee and not a concerned

citizen, there is no further case.

In conclusion, taking into account all of the court cases I’ve listed, I would decide in the

favor of the defendant. The school district would win this case and Ms. Griffin would be

dismissed. Even in the ​Pickering v. Board of Education​ when we apply the Pickering balancing

test, Ms. Griffin would likely lose this case. She made these statements while on the job, and

wasn’t a matter of public concern. What she said was her own personal opinions about people

that she worked with, which is not a public matter. Since Ms. Griffin was on the clock at the time

of the incident, according to ​Garcetti v. Ceballos​, she was speaking as an employee and would

not have a case. I do not believe the Court would allow Ms. Griffin to be reinstated based upon

these cases throughout education history.

First Amendment Rights of Teachers 7

References

Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. (1968). ​Teachers’ Substantive Constitutional Rights,

Vol3, 234-237.

Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle. (6th Cir. 19824). ​Teachers’ Substantive

Constitutional Rights,​ Vol3, 234-235.

​ ol3, 235-237.
Connick v. Myers, (1983). ​Teachers’ Substantive Constitutional Rights, V

Garcetti v. Ceballos, (2006). ​Teachers’ Substantive Constitutional Rights, ​Vol3, 235.