Running head: ANN GRIFFIN V BOARD OF EDUCATION 1

Artifact 2

Ann Griffin v Board of Education

Lea Martinez

College of Southern Nevada

Dr. Warby

EDU 210

June 17, 2017

ANN GRIFFIN V BOARD OF EDUCATION 2

Ann Griffin v Board of Education

Ann Griffin is a white tenured teacher that teaches at a predominantly black school. Both

the principal and assistant principal are African American. When she had a conversation with

the principal and vice principal the conversation became heated. Ann told them that she “hated

all black folks”. As a result, her statement received a negative reaction from the people she

worked with at the school. The principal recommended for her to be dismissed because he was

concerned that she would not be able to treat the students fairly. He also had concerns about her

judgment and competency as a teacher. Was Ann Griffin’s dismissal justifiable? Does she not

have freedom of speech which is protected by the First Amendment? What are her rights in

regards to being a tenured teacher?

The first amendment of the constitution gives citizens their freedom of speech.

Additionally, the Supreme Court states, “that neither students or teachers shed their

constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse door”(Underwood &

Webb, 2006, p. 48). Ann Griffin probably believed that her rights were protected under the First

Amendment of the constitution. In the Court case Pickering vs. Board of Education, Marvin

Pickering was terminated for writing a letter that was then published in a newspaper. He

criticized the school board in regards to the allocation of school funds. The U.S. Supreme Court

ruled that teachers, as citizens, have the right to make critical public comments on matters of

public concern (Pickering v Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, (1968). Both Ann Griffin and

Marvin Pickering made statements that involved people in the school system. However, Ann

Griffin’s comments were not of public concern and this would not protect her freedom of speech.

In another case, Jendra Loeffelman argued that she did not violate board policies when

she made inappropriate and unprofessional comments about interracial couples and biracial
ANN GRIFFIN V BOARD OF EDUCATION 3

students. During class, an African-American student asked the teacher several questions. One

question asked was about interracial relationships. Loeffelman replied, “interracial couples

should be fixed so they could not have children” ( Loeffelman v Board of Education of the

Crystal City School District 134, S.W. 3d 637 (2004). Because of those comments the teacher

was terminated. Similarly, Ann Griffin made an inappropriate comment to both the principal and

assistant principal.

Ann Griffin will argue that because she is a tenured teacher she has rights and she would

be correct in her argument. The case of Perry v Sindermann involved a tenured teacher where

the regents declined to renew his employment and they did not give him any explanation or a

hearing. Sindermann claimed, “that the decision not to rehire him was based on respondent's

public criticism of the college administration and thus infringed his free speech right, and that the

Regents' failure to afford him a hearing violated his procedural due process right” (Perry v.

Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972). Both Sindermann and Ann Griffin were tenured teachers. A

tenured teacher has certain rights when it comes to dismissal. Ann Griffin has the right

procedural due process.

Another case involving termination is Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill. In

this case Laudermill, a security guard was terminated because he lied on his application that he

was never convicted of a felony. When the Board of Education found out that he had a felony

record they dismissed him without giving him a hearing. “He was not afforded an opportunity to

respond to the dishonesty charge or to challenge the dismissal. Under Ohio law, Loudermill was

a "classified civil servant," and by statute, as such an employee, could be terminated only for

cause and was entitled to administrative review of the dismissal” (Cleveland Board of Education
ANN GRIFFIN V BOARD OF EDUCATION 4

v. Loudermill 470 U.S. 532 (1985). Because Ann Griffin is a tenured teacher she will argue that

she has the right to challenge any dismissal from the school.

Ann Griffin is a tenured teacher and that gives teachers employment protection.

However, if the school can establish a good and just cause for their dismissal and they give her a

hearing where she has the chance to state her side of the story, then the decision to dismiss her

should be upheld. In Pickering v Board of Education, the question was whether the school

system requiring additional funds was a matter of public concern (Pickering v Board of

Education 391 U.S. 562, (1968). Also in the case of Loeffelman v Board of Education of the

Chrystal City School District, the schools Superintendent sent a notice saying that based on their

investigation, the teacher made comments that were racially discriminatory (Loeffelman v.

Board of Education of the Chrystal City School District 134, S.W. 3d 637 (2004). Based on the

court cases, I believe the court will rule against Ann Griffin. Ann Griffin’s statement was not of

public concern. Additionally, the statement that she hates all black folks can be looked at as a

personal and racial attack.

ANN GRIFFIN V BOARD OF EDUCATION 5

References
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985).

Loeffelman v. Board of Education of the Chrystal City School District, 134 S.W 3d. 637 (2004).

Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972).

Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968).

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications. Upper

Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.