1

Running head: THE GRIFFIN SCENARIO

The Griffin Scenario

Jonathan B. Wood

College of Southern Nevada

 2
THE GRIFFIN SCENARIO

The Griffin Scenario

Ann Griffin, a tenured teacher, is facing a possible dismissal from her teaching position

based on concerns that her judgement and competency as a teacher could interfere with her

ability to teach students fairly and unbiased. Reasons for these concerns are being addressed

after a debate between Principal Freddie Watts and Assistant Principal Jimmy Brothers. During

this debate Ann Griffin commented that she “hated all black folks.” When other colleagues

learned of these remarks it caused a negative reaction from school staff.

Constitutional provisions dealing with this scenario specifically would include the First

Amendment protecting individuals to their right to free speech. In addition, due to Ann Griffin’s

tenured status as a teacher, she is allowed due process of the law, which falls under the

Fourteenth Amendment. All other rights she may be entitled to from the Constitution fall under

the Tenth Amendment which reserves authority over education to the State.

“Pro” Dismissal Viewpoint

The idea of Ann Griffin discussing topics directly related to the school itself has to come

under question in this scenario. The court case of Garcetti v. Ceballos determined that if a

debate is regarding issues pertaining to the school as an employee, those employees are protected

from unjustified dismissal (Cambron et. all, p. 235). Based on this finding, Ann Griffin would

have no further constitutional assessment, ensuring her employment because her statements

would have to do with her job responsibilities to treat all students equally and unbiased. This, in

accordance with her own statements would be impossible to do if she “hated all black folks.”

Whether the statements were accurate or not are also a subject of interest in this scenario.

The case of Waters v. Churchill states that an employee could be discharged from their position
 3
THE GRIFFIN SCENARIO
if the statements made were corroborated by other employees or co-workers who may be present

at the time the statement was made (Waters v. Churchill, 1994). To determine this would require

a full investigation and it would be the employee’s responsibility to prove the statements to be

false and that she was wrongly dismissed because of them.

“Con” Dismissal Viewpoint

Once again the topic of the conversation is a vital point that needs further investigation in

this scenario. Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated allows for protection under the First

Amendment of free speech (Givhan v. Western, 1979). If the topic of conversation lead the

Principals’ to feel that Griffin’s judgment and competency as a teacher was grounds for dismissal

then location, time, and manner of her expression comes into play. In the event that she was

neither at school nor in any way referring to the school itself, or speaking out as an employee of

the school, she is entitled to make her remarks as a form of private expression without fear of

dismissal.

These same ideas can be related to the Connick v. Myers case, which states that

determination of the context, form, and content of the conversation is necessary in making a

finding for termination (Connick v. Myers, 1983). If, in any way the statement was not a matter

regarding the public, Ann Griffin would not be protected under the First Amendment; however if

her conversation and phrasing was pulled out of context and her statements had nothing to do

with the school, she would be safe from the idea of being unable to treat her students fairly.

Judgement

Through fully reviewing this case and the laws brought forth by previous court cases, it is

this court’s decision to side with the dismissal of Ann Griffin. When applying the Pickering

balancing test, this case most efficiently does jeopardize Griffin’s relationship with coworkers as
 4
THE GRIFFIN SCENARIO
well as superiors, causing a strain on the school and on the overall learning environment that is

being taught at the High School.

 5
THE GRIFFIN SCENARIO

References

Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes (2014). Legal Rights of Teachers and Students. Pp. 235-

236.

Connick v. Myers. (1983). http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/461/138.htm

Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School District. (1979). http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-

court/439/410.html

Waters v. Churchill. (1994). http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/511/661.html

 6
THE GRIFFIN SCENARIO