Running Head: ARTIFACT #2 1

Artifact #2

Teachers Rights and Responsibilities

Michael Granado

CSN
ARTIFACT #2 2

Abstract

Ann Griffin, a tenured school teacher at a predominately African American high school with

African American administrators, was given a recommendation for dismal. The grounds for said

dismissal are for stating hated all black folks while in a conversation with her supervisors. As

well as concerns for her ability to treat students fairly, her judgement, and her competency as a

teacher. Ms. Griffin is entitled to her statement by her first amendment rights, but her right is not

permitted nor protected from expression while at work. The conversation was then leaked to her

colleagues by unknown sources which had adverse effects with her peers. The overall result of

her giving her statement dealing with racial prejudice was that she was ultimately removed from

her teaching position. Whether or not her dismissal was permitted can be seen in various, already

established court cases which gives us the precedence on whether or not the appropriate action

was taken by the school administrators or if her comment would be either substantiated or

dismissed due to hearsay.

ARTIFACT #2 3

When Ann Griffin, while in a closed door meeting with her direct supervisors expressed

her feelings that she hated all black folks she immediately relinquished her protected first

amendment rights and her right to expression. The fact that her comment was a hindrance to the

overall morale and the interpersonal work relationships can be upheld citing Pickering v. Board

of Education (1968) and applying the Pickering balancing test. The decision in Pickering v.

Board of Education (1968) was based on that the comments expressed by Pickering were used

via a public forum and he was ultimately reinstated, the resulting effect was the establishment of

the Pickering balancing test. While using the balancing test which has a set of criteria to

determine if said expression was constitutionally protected, the comment, particularly the portion

of all black folks, made by Ann Griffin did in fact impair with teaching effectiveness by

having an established bias towards African Americans. Her ability to fairly grade, teach and

effectively maintain a fair classroom order with African American students is hindered.

Additionally, her expression absolutely jeopardizes her direct relationship with not only her

immediate superiors, which are black individuals, but with her coworkers as well. Though ok to

have disagreements with management, it is never ok to cross the line into racial bias or slurs.

Thus by using Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) and the balancing test the dismissal of Ms.

Griffin is upheld.

Farthing the legitimacy of Ms. Griffins dismissal, she expressed those feelings

exclusively to her supervisors privately and not in a public forum. If Ms. Griffin filed an appeal

due to the fact that it was a private grievance, using the Connick principle being not a matter of

public concern with the content, context, and form of her expression, her dismissal would be
ARTIFACT #2 4

upheld. Being that the conversation and comment was made behind closed doors which can also

be seen in Givan v. Western Line Consolidated School District (1979), the expression did not

have a matter of public concern, even though it was a private conversation between Ms. Griffin

and her supervisors. The case also states that as long as the expression pertains to matters of

public concern, statements made in private are constitutionally protected. Being that the nature of

the conversation was not of public concern or well-being her first amendment rights are not

protected and the administration are in their legal right to dismiss Ms. Griffin.

Ms. Griffins conversation in a closed door setting to her superiors, the matter, context

and overall words used when determining her dismissal is hearsay. There was no record of what

was exactly said during this conversation nor documentation of what took place. In Waters v.

Churchill (1994) it was established via the Supreme Court and its conclusion that as long as the

employer conducted an investigation and acted in good faith, it could discharge an employee for

remarks it believed were made. Being that the employer in this case would have to be Ms.

Griffins school board, considering an investigation being conducted by the administrators in

question would have an obvious bias towards Ms. Griffin. Also, considering that the

conversation took place between three people and no others could argue that the administrators

had other agendas when dismissing Ms. Griffin and therefore the conversation is hearsay.

Ann Griffin was in fact a tenured teacher at the aforementioned school, how could she

have earned her tenure if she had racial tendencies? Or if she had prior disciplinary actions taken

against her? How could she have been dismissed and not even allowed her right of due process
ARTIFACT #2 5

and her 14th amendment rights? The answer is she couldnt. Ms. Griffin had no prior mark

downs and if she did, they were not properly recorded. She did not have her right to an

investigation and her 14th amendments rights not properly invoked. As seen in Mt. Healthy

School District v. Doyle (1977) and applying the Mt. Healthy standard, Ms. Griffins

supervisors, even if her comments were found substantial, has no other grounds for the decision

of her dismissal. After applying Waters v. Churchill, and establishing the expression was

undoubtedly hearsay, the burden shifts to the board to show that it would have reached the same

decision if the protected expression had not occurred.

Ms. Griffin, in my opinion should not be dismissed from her teaching position. It is

unknown whether or not those were in fact the words she used. She did not have a proper

investigation by the school board and did not have her 14th amendment rights properly invoked.

She was a tenured teacher, and by earning her tenure could not have done so if she had prior

incidents of insubordination or other negative actions taken against her. One could also argue the

matter in which the conversation had between administrators and employee were leaked and

can argue slander if found that the words used were not said. Therefore, in conclusion the

dismissal of a tenured teacher with no grounds other than hearsay cannot be upheld or

substantiated and Ms. Griffin should be able to continue teaching.

ARTIFACT #2 6

References

(n.d.). Caselaw: Cases and Codes - FindLaw Caselaw. WATERS v. CHURCHILL | FindLaw.

Retrieved September 27, 2016, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/511/661.html

(n.d.). Caselaw: Cases and Codes - FindLaw Caselaw. MT. HEALTHY CITY BOARD OF ED.

v. DOYLE | FindLaw. Retrieved September 27, 2016, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-

supreme-court/429/274.html

(n.d.). Caselaw: Cases and Codes - FindLaw Caselaw. CONNICK v. MYERS | FindLaw.

Retrieved September 27, 2016, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/461/138.html

(n.d.). Caselaw: Cases and Codes - FindLaw Caselaw. PICKERING v. BOARD OF

EDUCATION | FindLaw. Retrieved September 27, 2016, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-

supreme-court/391/563.html

(n.d.). Caselaw: Cases and Codes - FindLaw Caselaw. GIVHAN v. WESTERN LINE CONSOL.

SCHOOL DIST. | FindLaw. Retrieved September 27, 2016, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-

supreme-court/439/410.html