Running head: Artifact #2 Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities 1

Artifact #2

Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities

Callie L. McLean

College of Southern Nevada

September 9th, 2017

Running head: Artifact #2 Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities 2

Principle Freddie Watts and assistant principal Jimmy Brothers got into a dispute with

Ann Griffin, a tenured teacher under their employment. During this altercation Ann Griffin

stated that she “hated all black folks”. Seeing that both Watts and Brothers were African

American and that the school they administered held a majority of black students, Griffin’s

statement created tension and numerous of negative responses from the administration and her

colleagues. In response to this backlash Watts advised for Griffin’s dismissal due to the growing

concerns of her racial bias and the possible mistreatment of her students.

In the case of Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985) James Loudermill

applied for a support staff position under the Cleveland Board of Education. During his hiring

process Loudermill stated on the formal application that he had never been convicted of a felony.

After discovering Loudermill had in fact been convicted of grand larceny, the Cleveland Board

of Education fired him for falsifying his application without further consideration. However,

seeing that Loudermill was a “classified civil servant” he obtained a property right. This meant

that Loudermill couldn’t be fired without proper review and justifiable cause. After the

Cleveland Civil Service granted him a review, Loudermill’s termination was still considered

valid. This lead Loudermill to file suit against the Cleveland Board of Education, stating it was

unconstitutional that he was only allotted the chance to respond to the charges and was not

granted his right to due process to defend his offences. This case can also provide a justifiable

reason for Ann Griffin’s defence. Seeing as Ann Griffin, a tenured teacher, also has granted

rights of continued employment unless the board can support “good and just cause” for

termination (Underwood & Webb, 2006). Because of this status Griffin is granted a property

right and therefore, just like the Loudermill case cannot be dismissed without right of due

process.
Running head: Artifact #2 Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities 3

The case of Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle (1977) is an

example of a case analyzing the rights and protections of the First Amendment in regards to

public teaching officials. Fred Doyle, a non-tenured high school teacher was known for having

numerous altercations both with staff and students, including an allegation that he had made a

crude gesture to two of his students. In a separate matter Doyle had opposed a newly presented

staff dress code, to voice his frustrations Doyle addressed this new code to a radio talk station

who went on to report on this issue. When his contract came up for viewing Doyle’s principle

recommended a non renewal to the board. This lead Doyle to sue the Mt. Healthy City School

District Board of Education on grounds that his First Amendment rights had been violated being

that his contract would have been renewed had he not expressed his objection to the new dress

code. This case and many other like it are crucial in understanding the rights of public

employees, “ The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that public employees, including school

teachers, cannot be fired in retaliation for exercising their rights under the First Amendment” Mt.

Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle (1977). In this case Doyle had other

offences that could have lead the board to the decision of his non renewal, however when the

board addressed that Doyle showcased a “lack of tact in handling professional matters,” in

specific regards to his call to the radio station, this was seen as a clear violation of his First

Amendment rights. This can be used as a direct example in Ann Griffin’s case. Seeing that the

only noted reasoning for Ann Griffin’s dismissal was based on a statement she made in a

personal manner, Griffin’s statement should not be held against her. Without any other justifiable

cause for termination Griffin’s statement should be protected by her First Amendment rights.

One could argue her statement, as bias and inappropriate as it was, is still an example of how her
Running head: Artifact #2 Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities 4

freedom of speech doesn’t give grounds towards automatic termination. For Ann Griffins can

claim that her statement was of a personal matter and should not be taken into regards for her

teaching capabilities.

In the case Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District (1979) Bessie Givhan a

teacher at Glen Allan High School had numerous of run-ins with the school’s principal, James

Leachon, on issues of lack of supplies in her classroom as well as the racial discrimination

present at Glen Allan as compared to the other high schools within the newly formed Western

Line Consolidated School District. Because of these frequent altercations with Leachon, Givhan

was labeled as "insulating," "hostile," "loud," and "arrogant". Givhan was later informed that her

contract would not be reinstated for the following year. The School Board explained her

dismissal was due to her “criticism of the School District's practices and policies, which she

conceived to be racially discriminatory” Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District

(1979). While the District Court supported Givhan’s claim of violation to her First Amendment

rights, this decision was later reversed by the Court of Appeals based on reasoning from previous

cases such as Pickering v. The Board of Education of Township (1968) where it was argued that

"the employing agency's institutional efficiency may be threatened not only by the content of the

employee's message but also by the manner, time and place in which it is delivered." This

reasoning can be directly related to the issue of Ann Griffin’s statement. While public

employees, including public teachers, have the same rights so granted by the U.S. Constitution,

there must be a balance of understanding between the relationship of the employee as a citizen

and the employee as a contracted worker who holds position in an influential and peer involved

work force. Griffin’s statement created an environment of hostility and distrust amongst her

colleagues. Griffin’s efficiency as a teacher and colleague was drastically burdened by her bias
Running head: Artifact #2 Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities 5

and inappropriate statements. Seeing that Griffin’s statement was fueled by racist and bias

opinions, this makes Watts’ recommendation for Griffin’s dismissal the best interest of the

school, the students, and the faculty.

The case of Pickering v. The Board of Education of Township (1968) focuses on the

issue of First Amendment protections for public school employees. In this case Marvin

Pickering, a high school teacher, was dismissed due to a letter he had written to a newspaper that

critiqued the Board of Education's use of public funds. Pickering sued the Board stating that his

dismissal went against his First Amendment rights. This case was crucial to the understanding of

public employment law and the rights such employees have. This case demonstrated how a

citizen, even though they may work for the government, is still a citizen and therefore is still

protected by their rights in the U.S. Constitution, “unless the public expression undermines the

effectiveness of the working relationship between the teacher and the teacher’s superior or

coworkers” (Underwood & Webb, 2006). In Freddie Watts and Jimmy Brothers case Ann

Griffin’s statement creates a direct negative impact to the harmony and confidence in the

relationships of her coworkers. Seeing that Griffin’s statements occurred on campus and in front

of her superior administrators, those statements can’t be protected by her First Amendment rights

and express a lack of professionalism. Seeing that Griffin’s statement had already caused a

disturbance between her and her coworkers, Watts was justified in recommending her dismissal.

In view of this case I lean in favor of Freddie Watts and Jimmy Brothers. When

analyzing the numerous cases that coincide with the rights of both Freddie Watts and Ann

Griffin I feel the case, Pickering v. The Board of Education of Township (1968), best describes

the situation.For one must consider a balance of the citizen’s rights and their position as a

contracted official. While Griffin may have rights to her personal opinions and freedoms of
Running head: Artifact #2 Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities 6

speech as described by Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle (1977), the

fact remains that she was on school campus addressing her superiors with bias and hateful

speech. This sort of conduct is in direct violation of her contract as a public teaching official and

provides a just and reasonable cause for her termination. Even if Griffin’s statements were said

out of anger and she were able to put them aside from her teaching, her statement had already

caused tension and discomfort amongst her peers. It was in the school’s best interest that Watts

recommended Griffin’s dismissal, for her conduct showed a lack of professionalism and her

inability to maintain a healthy and productive relationship amongst her colleagues.

Running head: Artifact #2 Teacher’s Rights and Responsibilities 7

Reference

CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION v. LOUDERMILL. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved

September 8, 2017,

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1984/83-1362

GIVHAN v. WESTERN LINE CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved

September 8, 2017.

from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1978/77-1051

MT. HEALTHY CITY BD. OF ED. v. DOYLE. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved September 7, 2017.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-1278

PICKERING v. BOARD OF EDUCATION. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved September 7, 2017.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/510

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Teachers' Rights. In School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle

River: Pearson Education.