Teachers' Rights and Responsibilities

Artifact 2
Teachers' Rights and Responsibilities:
Ann Griffin V. School District
Jessica Bojorquez
Education 210
Ms. Herington
April 10, 2015

Teachers' Rights and Responsibilities

Ann Griffin v. School District

Ann Griffin is a caucasian teacher in a predominately African American high
school. She has taught in this school district long enough to be tenured. In a heated
discussion she was having with another two people, she mentioned that she hated all
black folks. Once word reached the school and her colleagues, it began to cause negative
reactions. Freddie Watts and Jimmy Brothers are the principal and assistant principal of
the school in which Ann Griffin teaches. Both the principal and assistant principal are
also African American. Once word had reached the administrators, they were questioning
Ms. Griffin's teaching abilities and whether or not she would be able to treat students
fairly based on her statement. Freddie Watts recommended dismissal based on these
concerns.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Our right to speak
freely is protected. It is our First Amendment Right because it is the most important,
regardless of whether or not someone else may or may not agree with it. Ann Griffin's
statement, although hateful, is still protected and it is her right to state it. Amendment 14
of the U.S. Constitution states that All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein the reside. 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; nor deny any person

Teachers' Rights and Responsibilities

Ann Griffin v. School District

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In other words, it is also our right
to be offered due process of law. The courts can not come to a decision in terms of our
life, liberty or property without first properly going through due process. The Fourteenth
Amendment is important in this case because Ms. Griffin is not offered due process in
this case. The administration has asked for her dismissal without first going through due
process.
In the case of Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District (1979), a
teacher expressed their opinion regarding the school's hiring practices in a meeting with
the school's principal. The teacher believed that the school was being racially
discriminate. The principal then claimed that the teacher made unreasonable and hostile
demands during the meeting. At the end of the school year, the superintendent notified
the teacher that their contract would not be renewed. The teacher then sued the school
district in a federal court trial in Mississippi. The court ruled in favor of the teacher. They
stated that the comments were delivered privately and did not threaten the school's ability
to teach affectively. The school board was also not able to provide proof that they would
have not renewed the teachers contract, had the comments not been made. In Ms.
Griffin's case, her statements made were believed to have been made in private.
Therefore, her speech is protected under the First Amendment. The school district will
have to provide proof that they would have dismissed her regardless of the racist
statement that she made.
Being a tenured teacher, Ms. Griffin is also entitled to due process of law. In the
case of Norgrove v. The Board of Education, a tenured teacher was fired by the school

Teachers' Rights and Responsibilities

district for multiple infractions. The teacher then contested the charges stating that he

Ann Griffin v. School District

never received proper notice from the school district in regards to his charges. The school
district had sent notices to a previous address in which Norgrove used to live. Although
the school district had documentation and reasoning that the termination was just, they
failed to notify the teacher of the charges being held against him. Thus, violating
Norgorve's right to due process of law. The courts ruled in favor of Norgrove, asking for
his reinstatement and retroactive back pay to be awarded to him. Based on the
information provided, Mr. Watts will be asking the board for permission to dismiss Ms.
Griffin. Mr. Watts must be sure that he properly follows the due process that Ms. Griffin
is entitled to. If the statement is a solitary infraction in an otherwise career of good
behavior, then the school board would have a hard time justifying their actions of
dismissal. The burden of proof lies on the school board to prove that Ms. Griffin is unfit
to teach, regardless of the statement that she made.
Although teachers are protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendment, there
are still cases and situations in which teachers have been dismissed for statements that
they made. In the case of Waters v. Churchill an obstetrics nurse was dismissed for
insubordination. The hospital stated that Waters' had complained to a fellow nurse about
her superiors. Since Waters was speaking as a nurse and not a private citizen, she is not
protected under the First Amendment. Although the hospital had no proof that Waters
made these negative comments, they conducted an investigation in good faith. Employers
can terminate an employee for something believed to be said, if an investigation is
conducted in good faith. Had the comments that Waters' made happened outside of work,

Teachers' Rights and Responsibilities

she may have still been protected under the First Amendment. Similarly, Ms. Griffin's

Ann Griffin v. School District

statement may not be protected. It is not clearly stated how and where Ms. Griffin's
statement was made. However, if the statement was made while at school to a colleague,
Mr. Watts' request for dismissal may be just. Mr. Watt's first course of action would be to
launch an investigation into the situation to figure out when and where the statement was
made. If Mr. Watts finds out that the statements were made while at work, then he would
have just cause to ask for Ms. Griffin's dismissal based on the fact that her speech was
not protected and that she could be negatively affecting the school environment that she
teaches in.
Although Mr. Watts is going to attempt to dismiss Ms. Griffin based on her
comment, he must also prove a record of bad or similar behavior in Ms. Griffin's file. Just
as was the case in the Doyle v. Mt. Healthy City School District. In this particular case, a
non-tenured teacher was unhappy with a newly proposed teacher dress code. The teacher
then decided to take a memo that was circulated to the teaching staff, in regards to the
new dress code, and give it to a local radio station. Once it came time for his contract to
be renewed, the school in which he worked declined to renew his contract. Doyle then
decided to sue the school district stating that his First Amendment right had been violated
and that the school based their decision for non-renewal on the memo that he had given to
the radio station. The burden of proof remained on the school district to show that they
would have not renewed Doyle's contract even if he did not release the memo to the radio
station. The school district then provided the court with Mr. Doyle's file of infractions
since the start of his contract. Mr. Doyle was observed making obscene gestures at

Teachers' Rights and Responsibilities

students. This was in addition to also getting in arguments with fellow teachers. This

Ann Griffin v. School District

evidence was sufficient enough for the court to rule in favor of the school district. The
school district provided sufficient evidence to show that they were going to discharge
regardless of him exercising his First Amendment right. Little is given about Ms.
Griffin's history at the school in which she teaches. If it is found that she has had
instances in the past similar to the one mentioned here, then the school district may have
enough reason to justify dismissing a tenured teacher. However, the burden will lie on the
school district to provide these facts.
Ms. Griffin is a tenured teacher. This suggest that, based on the state in which she
lives and the school district's rules for tenure, that she has taught there for quite some
time. Generally, teachers who teach long enough to be tenured have exhibited years of
good job performance. Otherwise, why would a school offer them tenure? Little is known
about all of the facts surrounding Ms. Griffin's statement. What is known, however, is
that a teacher who has taught at a predominately black high school supposedly made a
racist statement. In my opinion, this is not sufficient evidence to dismiss Ms. Griffin.
There is no other proof previous instances in which Ms. Griffin acted unprofessionally
and that these actions were affecting how she teaches. Mr. Watts and his administration
will undoubtably loose this case if he decides to dismiss a tenured teacher based on a
singular infraction of hearsay.

Teachers' Rights and Responsibilities

References
Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., & Eckes, S. E. (2014). Legal rights of
teachers and students. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Jernigan, M. J. (n.d.). Givhan v. western line consolidated school district. Retrieved from
http://educational-law.org/307-givhan-v-western-line-consolidated-schooldistrict.html
Matter (n.d.). Matter of Norgrove v. board of education of city school district of city of
N.Y., Retrieved from http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/othercourts/2009/2009-29034.html
Mt. Healthy (2015). Mt. Healthy City school district board of education v. Doyle
Retrieved from http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?
Id=276
Oyez (2015). Waters v. Churchill. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/19901999/1993/1993_92_1450