Running Head: TEACHERS’ RIGHTS !

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities in Griffen v. Board of Education

Buffy M. Thomas

College of Southern Nevada

TEACHERS’ RIGHTS !2

Abstract

This paper examines the possible outcomes of tenured teacher, Ann Griffin’s, recommendation of

dismissal from the school district. The examiner gives a brief overview of how the First and

Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution applies to teachers’ rights. The

following Supreme Court Cases are used for discussion of the opposing views of Griffin’s case:

Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District (1979), Mt. Healthy City School District v.

Doyle (1977), Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006), Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), and briefly,

Connick v. Meyers (1983). The examiner gives a detailed analysis of how the above court cases

are relevant to Ann Griffin’s situation. Based on the evidence and the court cases presented, the

reviewer finds that Ann Griffin’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were not infringed.

Moreover, Ann Given was not protected from school disciplinary action pursuant to her official

duties as a public employee.

TEACHERS’ RIGHTS !3

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities in Griffen v. Board of Education

Case Review

Ann Griffin, an Anglo-American teacher with tenure, teaches at a prominent African-

American high school. During a feverish discussion with the principal, Freddie Watts, and

assistant principal, Jimmy Brothers—who are African-American—Ann Griffin causticly

proclaimed that she “hated all black folks.” Her words eventually became known among the

staff members and created negative feelings with both Anglo-American and African-American

co-workers. Ann Griffin was recommended for dismissal by the principal, Freddie Watts, on the

grounds of, “Her ability to treat students fairly and her judgment and competency as a teacher.”

Discussion

Ann Griffin petitioned the courts for reinstatement to the school district, alleging the

dismissal violated her freedom of expression and the right to due process, guaranteed by the First

and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. According to the First

Amendment, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” (“The Charters of

Freedom,” 2015). The Fourteenth Amendment applies First Amendment rights to the states and

guarantees due process, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person

of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (“The Charters of Freedom,” 2015). In

reference to teacher’s rights, the courts have established that, “liberty” includes a teacher’s

freedom of expression and “property” includes a teacher’s tenured position (Cambron-MacCabe,

McCarthy, Eckes, 2014, p. 285-286). In Griffin’s case, we will examine her claim that the school
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS !4

district deprived her of freedom of speech, and subsequently her property, through the dismissal

from her tenured position without due process.

The first step the petitioner, Ann Griffin, has to establish is if her freedom of expression is

protected in this situation. Griffin claims that her freedom of speech was protected because she

was in a private conversation with the principal and vice principal of the school. Counsel for the

petitioner looks to Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District (1979) to establish that

Griffin’s freedom of expression was indeed protected. Givhan, a school teacher, was dismissed

after expressing her concerns about the school’s racial discrimination policies in a private

conversation with the principal. The Supreme Court held that freedom of expression is not

forfeited when a conversation takes place in private, as opposed to a public forum (“Justia,”

2015). Ms. Griffin’s conversation, with Freddie Watts and Jimmy Brothers, was also held in

private; thus, counsel justifies, her expression was protected.

Next, the petitioner claimes, if she did not have the private conversation with the

administration, she would not have been dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner references Mt.

Healthy City School District v. Doyle (1977), in which a teacher’s contract was not renewed after

he placed a call to a local radio station in reference to a proposed grooming regulation. It was

determined that the school district had sufficient cause for non-renewal, independent of the

radio-station call, and the teacher’s expression was not the central reason for dismissal. The

Supreme Court established, “A public educator can be disciplined or dismissed if sufficient cause

exists independent of the exercise of protected speech” (Cambron-MacCabe et. al., 2014, p. 234).

However, Griffin asserts there was no other cause for the recommendation of her dismissal,
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS !5

except the words spoken in the private conversation. Thus, the petitioner seeks reinstatement,

under the protection of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, of protected speech.

The defense of the school district maintains they did not infringe on Ms. Griffin’s

freedom of expression, as the conversation related directly to her job duties. Under Garcetti v.

Ceballos (2006), the Supreme Court determined “Expression pursuant to official job

responsibilities is not protected” (Cambron-MacCabe et. al., 2014, p. 235). It was decided that

Ceballos’ memorandum, accusing a deputy sheriff of lying in an affidavit, was “pursuant to [his]

official job responsibilities” (Cambron-MacCabe et. al., 2014, p. 235). Due to the fact that

Griffin was speaking to her direct superiors, the school district alleges that the petitioner spoke as

an employee, not as a private citizen. Hence, the private conversation was pursuant of her

official job duties.

Further, in Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), Pickering wrote to a local newspaper

in regard to how school funding was being allocated. The Supreme Court “identified expression

pertaining to matters of public concern as constitutionally protected,” and determined that a

school’s allocation of funds was a matter of public concern (Cambron-MacCabe et. al., 2014, p.

234). Under this premise, the defense argues Griffin’s statement was not a matter of public

concern and is not constitutionally protected. Rather, her heated comment was a personal

grievance, aired as an employee to her direct supervisors. In Connick v. Meyers (1983), the

Supreme Court ruled, “A personal grievance…is not protected by the First

Amendment” (Cambron-MacCabe et. al., 2014, p. 235). Additionally, in applying the Pickering

balancing test, the defense claims that the petitioner’s statement that she “hated all black folks,”
TEACHERS’ RIGHTS !6

risked the working relationship with the administration, staff, and students; adversely affecting

school operations. Thus, Griffin’s actions forfeited her protection of expression.

Conclusion

Based on Garcetti v. Ceballos, Pickering v. Board of Education, and Connick v. Meyers,

this reviewer finds that Ann Griffin’s expression to the principal and vice principal, were not

protected. Therefore, Griffin’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were not infringed upon.

Further, the Mt. Healthy claim did not support the petitioner because the Board of Education

determined, upon further investigation into the principal’s recommendation, to issue a dismissal

based on her lack of “judgment and competency as a teacher,” on evidence prior to the private

conversation. Ann Griffin’s offensive remarks to her direct supervisors were made pursuant of

her job responsibilities; stated as an employee, rather than a private citizen; and adversely

affected the working relationship with her co-workers. Consequently, her dismissal will stand.



TEACHERS’ RIGHTS !7

References

Cambron-MacCabe, N.H., McCarthy, M.M., Eckes, S.E. (2014). Legal rights of teachers and

students. Boston: Pearson.

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

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

Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410 (1979).

Justia US Supreme Court. (2015, September 29). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/

cases/federal/us/439/410/case.html#413.

Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977).

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

The Charters of Freedom. (2015, September 29). Retrieved from http://www.archives.gov/

exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html.