Running Head: Artifact #2 1

Teachers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Cynthia Gubler
College of Southern Nevada
Artifact #2 2

Ann Griffin is a white tenured teacher who was recently fired from the high school where
she worked. Ann stated during a heated conversation between herself and the principal and
assistant principal that she “hated all black folks.” Freddie Watts, the principal, and Jimmy
Brothers, the assistant principal, were troubled by her outburst since they are the administrators
at a predominantly black high school. Her fellow teachers and staff members of both races also
reacted negatively when they heard Ms. Griffin’s remark. Principal Freddie Watts dismissed her
due to his concerns that she would not be able to treat students of any race fairly and that she was
not a competent teacher. Principal Watts decision is controversial to many people and is actually
not a unique situation. Many teachers have come under fire over the years for making racist
remarks and many of these teachers have fought their dismissals or suspensions in the courts and
the decisions are not always unanimous when it comes to this subject.
Garcetti v. Ceballos is one of the most well-known Supreme Court cases that deals with
the first amendment and how it applies to a public employee’s right to free speech. In this
particular case Richard Ceballos was the deputy district attorney in Los Angeles County.
Ceballos received information from a defense attorney that there were misrepresentations in an
affidavit and upon his own investigation he discovered that to be true. He went to his
supervisors with this information and submitted a memo where he suggested that they should
dismiss the case. His supervisors then called him in for a meeting that became heated and
accused him of not being to handle the case. They decided to proceed with the case and during
the hearing Ceballo was called by the defense to testify about the misrepresentations in the
affidavit. Ceballos claims that his supervisors retaliated against him at work by reassigning him
and denying him a promotion. Ceballos took his case to the Court of Appeals where they ruled
that his criticism of the affidavit in the memo was protected under free speech but when it was
brought before the Supreme Court they reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Their reasoning was that “public employees are not speaking as normal citizens when
they are speaking to fulfill a responsibility of their job” and thus Ceballos was not protected
under the first amendment.
Pickering v. Board of Education was a case in which a high school teacher, Marvin
Pickering, was dismissed after he wrote a letter criticizing how the superintendent and the school
board were spending school money. Mr. Pickering appealed the Board’s decision to the Circuit
Court and Supreme Court of Illinois who both took the side of the Board. When Pickering
appealed to the Supreme Court they reversed the decision stating that his dismissal was violating
his right to free speech since his letter was not directly effecting his work. They stated that since
it was not having an impact on his relationship between him and his supervisors or his ability to
teach his students that he had a right to write the letter.
Connick v. Myers was a case in which a public employee was terminated for speaking out
on concerns as a public employee. Sheila Myers was an assistant district attorney in Louisiana
who did not get along with her boss, District Attorney Harry Connick Sr. Upon receiving word
that she was going to be transferred, she resisted in an intense argument with Connick and his
supervisor. Connick and the supervisor decided to fire her based on her remarks as well as a
survey that she had handed out to fellow employees about Connick’s management abilities. She
Artifact #2 3

claimed that her firing infringed on her right to free speech and that her comments were about
public concern and did not directly relate to her job. She appealed her firing with the Eastern
District of Louisiana who sided with her. Connick appealed the district court’s decision and it
was brought to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals who affirmed the decision. The Fifth Court
agreed with Myers that the firing was due to the survey which was protected under her first
amendment rights to free speech and because she was a public employee and this did not directly
affect her job then she was protected. Connick again appealed the case to the Supreme Court
who reversed the decision of the two lower courts. Their reasoning was that Myers’ comments
in the survey were of a personal matter and not of public concern. What this essentially meant
was that her hurtful comments in the survey had negatively affected her relationship with her
boss and was thus causing a negative effect on the work place.
In Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth David Roth was hired as a first-year
professor without tenure. Mr. Roth’s contract was not renewed for the next year and he was
given no explanation. He claimed that it was because of critical comments that he made about
the university and its administration. He also claimed that since this was the case that they were
infringing upon his first amendment right to free speech. Mr. Roth brought it to the federal
district court and then on to the Supreme Court where they ruled slightly in his favor. They ruled
that “when a violation of First Amendment rights is alleged, the reasons for dismissal or for
nonrenewal of an employment contract must be examined to see if the reasons given are only a
cloak for activity or attitudes protected by the Constitution.” What this meant was that the
university had to give a specific reason for his termination in order to determine whether or not it
violated his First Amendment rights since some speech is covered under this amendment.
In my opinion I believe that the principal was justified in his firing of Ann Watts. The
Supreme Court set a strong precedent in both Garcetti v. Ceballos and Pickering v. Board of
Education by stating that public employees such as teachers do have the right to free speech
under the First Amendment; however, this right is only protected as long as it does not interfere
with their responsibility to their job. In Connick v. Myers, Connick was able to prove to the
Supreme Court that Ms. Myers comments were of a personal nature and also interfered with her
responsibility to her job and created a hostile work environment. I believe that Ms. Watt’s
comments fall into a similar category since it was a personal belief, it will cause a problem
between her and her supervisors since they are both the race in question, and will also cause
contention between herself and her other co-workers who already reacted negatively which
ultimately will affect the effectiveness of the work place. The Board of Regents of State
Colleges v. Roth outcome would not protect Ms. Watts either because although she is a public
employee, the principal and assistant principal gave a valid reason for her firing. In this case the
principal stated the reason for her termination was that she would not be able to treat students
fairly due to her racist remarks and that her judgment and competency as a teacher was a
concern. The principal’s reasoning for her dismissal make it abundantly clear that Ms. Watt’s
comments will cause her to not be able to accurately perform her duties as a public employee and
thus her right to free speech is not being violated.
Artifact #2 4

References

Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)

Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)
Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, Will City., 391 U.S. 563
(1968)