Running Head: ARTIFACT #2 1

Artifact #2
Dara Marquez
Nevada School Law EDU 210
College of Southern Nevada
ARTIFACT #2 2

Abstract
This paper is for showing how previous cases are used to determine present cases. Along with

gaining exposure to cases it also aids in making the rights of teachers relatable to us as students.

We now have a reference for when something is and is not protected. I talk about the 1st

Amendment, due process, the 14th Amendment and four cases in my paper. I also make a

concluding statement about how the case should be decided based on this information to back

my statement up. The four cases are: Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle (1977), Garcetti

v. Ceballos (2006), Givan v. Western Line Consolidated School District (1979), and Pickering v.

Board of Education (1968).

Artifact #2

Throughout history people have said things they should not have. Whether it be at an

inappropriate time, or in the wrong setting or even out of anger and not with true feeling.

However, in every instance one thing remains fact: they cannot take it back (no matter how

much they want too). This paper covers both sides of the Griffin v School District case.

The plaintiff Ann Griffin, a teacher, stated that she, “hated all black folks.” She was

having a discussion with the principal and the assistant principal of the school. The school at

which she worked had a high-population of African-Americans students. She was recommended

for dismissal due to a lack of confidence regarding her ability to treat students in a non-biased

fashion and to be competent as a teacher. Here is where we get our case because Ann Griffin

goes against the school district, now our defendant. In this paper, I will be addressing 1st

Amendment rights, I will be including information on due process along with the 14th

Amendment before going into supporting cases.

The first thing that may come to your mind is: What about her freedom of speech?

When looking at the freedom of speech protected by the 1st Amendment it is protected to a

certain degree. When a teacher speaks on a matter of public concern then yes, 100% it is

protected. When the teacher is not speaking within the realm of public concern the protection is

no longer viable. Also, there is Due Process and the 14th Amendment that we must take into

consideration going forward with this case. Due Process is the right under the 14th Amendment

that requires teachers be given notice of disciplinary actions that are being taken against them.

“If the dismissal of a teacher affects either a property or a liberty right, due process must be

given.” (Underwood & Webb, 2006). Ann Griffin was a tenured teacher and as such she has a

property right to her employment and would be required to be given due process. The minimum
ARTIFACT #2 4

that the school district would need to provide is a notice of charges, a hearing and a decision

based solely on the evidence provided. The 1st Amendment, due process and the 14th

Amendment govern the Griffin v School District case in relations to rights along with giving

perimeters in which to adhere while opposing and supporting this case.

In looking at Griffin v School District two previous cases will go for supporting the side

in favor of Ann Griffin. The first is the case of Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle

(1977). That shows us that the school district has to show that, even without the statement Ann

Griffin made, they would have come to the same decision of dismissal based on other reasons.

The information that we are given that sets this case up gives no other indication that Ann Griffin

has done anything else to warrant a dismissal. In line with supporting that, Ann Griffin was a

tenured teacher. She had already passed her probationary phase of employment. Since she had

completed that amount of time working without incident the likelihood of having alternative

reasons for dismissal, other than the statement, is unlikely.

Moving on to the second supporting case: Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006). With this case we

are able to cover the grounds that Ann Griffin did not make a comment in regards to her official

job description. She is being dismissed due to a statement on her feelings of a whole particular

population; nowhere is her job or duties tacked on to that. Using that case, had she been saying

things that pertained to her job or duties then the employer would have the right to use a

dismissal; however, since the job or duties were not addressed in the choice section of argument

there should be no right of the school district to use such punishment.

Having covered two cases in which the plaintiff could be in the right I will now look at

two cases that support the defendant, the School District. The first case is the Givhan v. Western

Line Consolidated School District (1979). This case supports the School District’s decision by
ARTIFACT #2 5

stated that even though Ann Griffin was having a private conversation with the principal and

assistant principal, the time, place, and manner of the remarks can be considered in assessing

private expression. Simply put regardless of where she made the statement is not in the

protected boundary of public concern. Since it is not protected by her 1st Amendment right it

makes no difference that it was made in private.

Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) is the second case we will look at to

support the defendant. The aspect of this case that is useful in deciding the Griffin v. School

District (2016) case is there is a balancing test that allows us to place the speech in question

directly on either the protected side or the not protected side. I will plug the speech from Ann

Griffin into the test and allow for it to produce the results for us.

Part 1) Does the speech jeopardize her relationship with immediate supervisor or

harmony with co-workers?

 Yes, it does. Information is given stating that her statement caused negative

reactions with her colleagues. Her co-workers will be less likely to have a

smooth work relationship with her now that she has said that.

Part 2) Does it interfere with teaching effectiveness?

 Yes, it does. Students will be unable to respect her as a teacher and authority

figure or role model when they learn about the statement she made.

Part 3) Does it impede with school operation?

 Yes, it does. Due to the fact that both previous answers were also yes, the

statement she made will always be an issue that gets in the way of duties getting

carried out appropriately.

For this case I have decided that the defendant is the party in the right and support the

School District’s decision to dismiss Ann Griffin. Eventhough, two cases show we Ann Griffin

could think she was wrongfully dismissed the two cases used to support the School District are

clear cut as to how her statement is in no way protected due to it having nothing to do with

public concern. This has been an eye opening assignment, and has given me more comfort in

terms of thinking about law and cases.

References

Caselaw: Cases and Codes - FindLaw Caselaw. (n.d.). Retrieved September 28, 2016,
from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/

Garcetti v. Ceballos (May 30, 2006)

Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District (January 9, 1979)

Mt. Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle (January 11, 1977)

Pickering v. Board of Education (June 3, 1968).

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). School Law For Teachers Concepts and Applications. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.