Running head: ARTIFACT #2 1

Artifact #2

Christian Prada

College of Southern Nevada

ARTIFACT #2 2

Abstract

Ann Griffin is a white teacher who makes private remarks to her principal and assistant principal

that she “hates all black folks.” This leads to her coworkers finding out and the principal

recommending that she be dismissed. This paper will be looking at this scenario and providing

two court cases to support each party. Finally, I will analyze what a court is likely to rule

provided the precedent given.

ARTIFACT #2 3

Artifact #2

The first case we will be examining has to do with teachers’ freedom of speech. This

particular case involves a white, tenured teacher named Ann Griffin. She got into a heated

conversation with her principal and vice principal in which she stated that she “hated all black

folks.” Word got out about this incident and it caused a huge negative reaction with her

colleagues of all races. The principal ends up making a suggestion for her dismissal due to the

concern that she cannot treat her students fairly and concerns about her judgement and

competency.

The first court case that Ann would use to defend her position would be Mt. Healthy City

School District v. Doyle. In this case, a non-tenured teacher called a local radio station to

complain about a new proposed grooming code. Even though the teacher had been involved in

other incidents, the school board only referenced the radio call when they decided to not renew

his contract. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court where it was decided that first the

burden is on the employee to show that their conduct was constitutionally protected and the main

reason for being dismissed or reprimanded. After this, however, it is on the employer to show

that they would have reached the same decision apart from said conduct. Ann would argue that

her private statements to the principal were protected speech and that it was the SOLE reason for

her dismissal. She had not had any other incidents or write-ups and the principal had already

admitted that this was the motivation behind suggesting for her dismissal.

The second court case Ann would use would be Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated

School District. In this case, a teacher made private complaints to a principal in regards to the

racial impact of school district policies. She continued complaining to the principal and he then

asked the school district not to rehire her. The Supreme Court ended up siding with the teacher
ARTIFACT #2 4

and ordering her to be reinstated saying that even though she spoke to the principal privately, it

was a matter of public concern and therefore protected speech she could not get fired for. Ann

would argue that she is in a much similar situation. She claims that she was speaking with the

principal about racial issues that were a public concern and that she never made the statement

that she “hates all black folks.” Ann sees her situation as a parallel to this court case and feels she

should also be reinstated as a teacher.

In rebuttal to Ann’s case, the school district would start by using the case of Waters v.

Churchill. In this case, a nurse was making critical comments about the hospital to a coworker.

Word got out and she ended up being fired. The employer claimed that they had been disrupting

the workplace. The court decided that as long as the employer conducted an investigation and

acted in good faith, they didn’t have to prove exactly what the employee had said. You can get

fired for what they believe has been said. The school district in Ann’s case had held an

investigation about the incident in good faith and found that even though it was “hearsay,” they

had found sufficient reason to believe she had made those comments.

The second case the school district would use against Ann Griffin would be Pickering v.

Board of Education. In this case, a teacher wrote a letter to a newspaper criticizing the school

board’s fiscal policies and was subsequently fired. The Supreme Court decided that public

employees have a right to express their views on matters of public concern but that it had to be

weighed against the school board’s interest in providing and maintaining its educational services.

The court established a balancing test that provided 3 reasons why a teacher could be fired for

his/her speech: compromising your classroom performance, impeding school operations, or

jeopardizing the relationship between you and your coworker and supervisors. The school

district would argue that Ann’s comments had made it impossible for there to be harmony
ARTIFACT #2 5

between her and her coworkers. Under the Pickering Test, they argue that her comments created

so much chaos and disharmony in the work environment that normal school operations were

being jeopardized. They insist that they had no choice but to fire her in light of this.

It is very interesting to see how different court cases have shaped a teacher’s rights to

freedom of speech. In this case, I believe the court would ultimately side with the school district

in choosing to fire Ann Griffin. When analyzing a public educator’s expression rights, the final

test is the Pickering balancing test. So regardless of Ann’s defense, her comments are going to be

put through that test. She is teaching at a predominantly black school and her principal and vice

principal are both African American. Her colleagues have already shown disgust and disdain for

her after finding out about her comments and there is no going back on these working

relationships. They are broken beyond repair so the court would rule in favor of the school

district.
ARTIFACT #2 6

References

Doyle v. Mt. Healthy City School District, 670 F.2d 59 (6th Cir. 1982).

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

Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. at 572, 574 (1968)

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