First Amendment Rights | publicemployeesfreespeech.com

"Teachers are as a class the members of a community most likely to have

informed and definite opinions as to how funds allotted

to the operation of the schools should be spent.
Accordingly, it is essential that they be able to speak out freely on such
questions without fear of retaliatory dismissal.”

Pickering v. Board of Education, United States Supreme Court, 1968

Since it is unconstitutional to fire public employees for writing letters to the editor which address matters of public concern even when those criticisms are levied against their employer, supervisors will attempt to intimidate or legitimize termination of an outspoken critic by fabricating justifiable reasons, such as “disruptiveness.”

In 1968 when Marvin Pickering, a high school teacher in Illinois, wrote a letter to the editor criticizing his school board for its handling of public funds, he was fired. His case was the first involving teachers’ First Amendment rights to be heard by the Supreme Court. The court concluded that speech by a public employee which is derogatory of his or her school system is protected when it involves “a matter of compelling public concern.” The court ruled that how public officials spend public money is indeed a matter of significant public concern. All First Amendment cases with public employees now turn on the decision of this landmark case (Pickering v. Board of Education).

An Arizona court in Starsky v. Williams held that only a case which is “extremely strong or unusual” could deny a public school teacher from speaking his or her opinions as a citizen.

More than four decades since the landmark decision in Pickering v. Board of Education, 1968, many teachers still cannot criticize their school system without fear of retaliation. When Maggi Hall, a veteran public school teacher with superior rankings, wrote a letter to the newspaper in Marion County South Carolina, criticizing her school district, little did she realize that one day she would be called upon to defend the cornerstone of democracy itself—the First Amendment. AFFIRMED: Teachers as Citizens is Hall's amazing story of determination.

Surprisingly Hall's journey led her out of the classoom and to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Florence Division and ultimately to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond Virginia. Hall v. Marion School District II , 1994, is case law, having become one of the most important first amendment cases to come down from the Fourth Circuit in over a decade. School administrators and public employers as well as public school teachers and public employees waited expectantly for the court ruling.

EXCERPTS FROM JUDGE WILLIAM TRAXLER'S RULING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION:

…To put it mildly, Foil was displeased with Hall’s letters and the FOIA request…. Despite receiving numerous memoranda in which Foil openly discussed his contempt for Hall and his plans to punish her, the board refrained from correcting Foil. This court finds that the board’s silence and inaction evidenced a willingness on the part of the board to ratify Foil’s actions….

…The pressure on Hall became immense. Not only was she experiencing public intimidation from Foil, but she was also becoming the target of criticism from within the school itself. Her visitors and the times of her arrival and departure were closely monitored. She was given warnings of rules infractions, many of which were the most picayune….

…To understand Foil’s tactics, one need only harken back to the contents of his “Final Word” ad and his remark to the board that “enough rope will allow our gadfly to suspend herself in an awkward position.” As the months went by, however, Hall did not “suspend herself.” She continued to teach and to teach well….

…Evidently, Foil had hopes that Hall would do something that would constitute, in and of itself, an independent basis for her dismissal. When following Hall produced no evidence and surveillance in Washington, D.C. proved fruitless, it appeared Foil and LeGette would be without the “hard evidence” they knew they needed to terminate Hall. Then, coincidentally, Foil apparently responded to the previous month’s teachers’ petition requesting Hall’s transfer….

…Foil’s campaign to dismiss Hall had begun immediately after Hall voiced her opinion on matters of public concern. Foil’s memoranda throughout the year to the board members clearly showed his personal antagonism for Hall and his goal of terminating her. The board’s affirmance of Hall’s dismissal on September 6, 1991, was the culmination and ratification of Foil’s plan: “[A]t the first high wind that comes along, you will be uprooted and blown away, and probably will never know the reason why….”

Hall knows the reason why, as does this court—her expressions on matters of public concern.

EXCERPTS FROM JUDGE KAREN J. WILLIAMS OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT RICHMOND VIRGINIA:

…Although the District claims that the Board acted independently of Foil in deciding to dismiss Hall, the district court found and the evidence shows otherwise. As discussed previously, the Board was fully apprised of all of Foil’s retaliatory actions and condoned each of them. This is evidenced by Foil’s numerous memoranda to the Board and the Board’s approval of the use of District money in an attempt to obtain a legitimate reason to fire Hall. The district court specifically found “that the [B]oard’s refusal to intervene on behalf of Hall and its subsequent agreement to discharge her, despite knowledge of Foil’s plans to terminate her for obviously improper reasons, constitutes [B]oard ratification of Foil’s conduct.”

…Therefore, by dismissing Hall the Board not only ratified Foil’s unconstitutional behavior, but also participated in the violation of Hall’s First Amendment rights….

In summary, we affirm the district court’s determination that Hall was not precluded from asserting her First Amendment claim in federal court. We also affirm the district court’s determination that the Board fired Hall in violation of her First Amendment rights and that the District may be held liable for the violations. AFFIRMED.

Email this Site