1

Artifact #2 Teachers Rights and Responsibilities

Artifact #2

Teachers Rights and Responsibilities

Kam Hanna

College of Southern Nevada

September 30, 2018

A white, tenured teacher named Mrs. Griffin became involved in a heated discussion with the

Mr. Watts, the principle, and Mr. Brothers the assistant principle; both African-American. The

discussion led to the teacher telling the administrators that she “hated all black folks.” Both the

principle and the assistant principle are African -American. Because other faculty heard about

the incident, and were upset about her statement, the administrators decided a dismissal would be

appropriate. They felt that since they serve as educators in a school where blacks are the

majority, this teacher would likely discriminate against the children she teaches. They also

called into question her ability to teach and thought it had been compromised.

The first case we discuss in favor of principle Watts to dismiss the tenured teacher Mrs.

Griffin, is Loeffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City School District (2004). Here, a

teacher named Ms. Loeffelman commented to an eight-grade student that she was not in favor of

interracial relationships and stated that those couples should be “fixed” so they wouldn’t produce

offspring that were “racially confused.” The courts agreed with the school board in that because

she “willfully violated board policy,” she could be terminated (Loeffelman v. Board of Ed.,

2004). The board considered her comments discriminating which were against the policies

spelled out in her contract that was signed by her in May of 2002. The courts also referenced the

word “willful” to mean that Ms. Loeffelman understood the details of her contractual

obligations, duties, and policies, but went against them nonetheless. Also, because her

comments were not a matter of public concern, they are not protected by the First Amendment

(Underwood & Webb, 2006). This case Loeffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City

School District directly relates to Mrs. Griffin’s act of discrimination as well, since both her and
 3
Artifact #2 Teachers Rights and Responsibilities

Loeffelman were in violation of discrimination policies stated in each of their contracts which

gives reasons for termination.

The second case we see in favor of the principle Watts recommendation for dismissal is

Johnson v. Poway Unified School District (2011) where a seasoned high school calculus teacher

named Johnson felt his First Amendment rights were infringed upon by telling him he could not

display large banners with logos such as “In God We Trust” and God Bless America” in his

classroom (Johnson v. Poway Unified School District, 2011). Some argued that the words were

considered, “taken out of context” by other faculty members and may be a deliberate effort to

use school grounds to display and promote his religious views (Johnson v. Poway Unified

School District, 2011). The principle involved asked him to take them down in order to prevent

some students from becoming uncomfortable. The district courts originally favored Johnson and

stated that Poway was not to interfere with the displays. Later in an appeal process, the Supreme

Court concluded that using the Pickering-based method of analysis, that Poway did not violate

Johnson’s rights to free speech. Again, we see that a teacher’s right to free speech is curtailed by

laws that allow a school board to distinguish not only what materials can be displayed such as in

Johnson v. Poway Unified School District (2011), but they can also decide if they impede the

educational process. Since not all speech or symbolic expression of a teacher is protected

(Underwood & Webb, 2006), as we see in Johnson v. Poway Unified School District (2011), the

administrators have a right to pursue dismissal procedures.

The first case we will look at in favor of Mrs. Griffin is Ritzert v. board of Education of the

Academy School District No. 20 (2015) is a case concerning a tenured teacher put on

administrative leave pending her resignation that was encouraged by the school district. She
 4
Artifact #2 Teachers Rights and Responsibilities

refused to resign and then waited for them to administer the proper dismissal procedures in a

timely manner, which they did not. After waiting for months and most of the Summer, she

finally took a job in a different district. Her previous employers became aware of her new job

and only then proceeded to act on the dismissal procedures, stating that she did not return to

work as she was supposed to and then citied her for insubordination. The state of Colorado state

court used the Teacher Employment Compensation and Dismissal Act as the main the basis of

their conclusion to reverse the decision of the court of appeals and to reinstate Mrs. Ritzert. This

case proves that principal Watts would have to carry the burden of proof of “just cause,” (Ritzert

v. Board of Ed. 2015) otherwise the district cannot terminate the contract of a tenured teacher, as

is the case of Ms. Griffin. Based on this case principal Watts would not have the right to

terminate Mrs. Griffin unless they could prove her incompetency as a teacher as well as her

alleged potential to discriminate.

The second case we will look at in favor of the tenured teacher, Mrs. Griffin is Perry v.

Sindermann (1972) in which a teacher, who worked for a university in Texas for ten years, was

unable to have his contract renewed after he publicly criticized policies of the administrators.

The regents did not provide reasons for nonrenewal other than insubordination and did not give a

written explanation to any specific details. They also denied the professor a hearing, which the

court deemed necessary even though he was not tenured. The court in the case of Perry v.

Sindermann (1972), affirmed that the teacher’s first and fourteenth amendment rights were

violated which makes the retaliation of nonrenewal against the constitution. Even though the

professor was not tenured, and Mrs. Griffin was, denying due process procedures is against the

constitution and therefore principal Watts is legally unable to pursue dismissal.

Even though I do not agree with Mrs. Griffin’s racist remarks, because the burden of proof is

on principle Watts, dismissal would not be possible unless they can prove that Mrs. Griffin’s

comments during the argument will affect her competency as teacher without racial bias. Had

she shown previous signs of being racially biased? If so, then I doubt she would have lasted long

at her current high school which is predominately black. Also referring to the case of Ritzert v.

board of Education of the Academy School District No. 20 (2015), Mr. Watts would also be

obligated to prove her incompetence to the district. He would also, by law, have to offer a

hearing so that she can attempt to dispute the allegations, as well as prove her competency, as

pointed out in the case of Perry v. Sindermann (1972). Being that Perry was denied a hearing

and due process which is against the constitution. I believe a disciplinary action, such as transfer

and a class in cultural diversity is a more appropriate approach based on the lack of additional

evidence that her performance as a teacher is compromised. Finally, I believe Mrs. Griffin would

be justified to dispute her case in court and win, based on the notated case studies, if she were to

need to pursue a lawsuit.

References

Johnson v. Poway Unified School District., No. 10-55445 (2011). Retrieved Sept. 27, 2018.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1579924.html.

Loeffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal School District. Missouri Court of Appeals,
Easter District, division 5 (2004). Retrieved Sept. 28, 2018.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-of-appeals/1109760.html

Perry v. Sindermann. United States Supreme Court No. 70-36 (1972). Retrieved Sept. 28, 2018.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/408/593.html

Ritzert v. Board of Education of the Academy School District No.20, Supreme Court Case No.
13SC930 (2015) Retrieved Sept. 27, 2018.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/co-supreme-court/1719230.html

Underwood, J. Webb, L.D. (2006). Teacher’s Rights in School Law for Teachers. Columbus,
Ohio. Pearson Education, Inc.