Running head: ARTIFACT 2 1

Artifact 2

Monica Chavez

Education 210: Nevada Law

Ms. Herington

15, April 2016

ARTIFACT 2 2

Abstract

Teachers have to be cautious what they say, do, or act because of what can get them dismissed.

One teacher could face dismissal based off of a statement that she lashed out and said. There are

two sides, one regarding if the teacher should remain at the school and one for dismissal of the

teacher.
ARTIFACT 2 3

Artifact 2

Judges hear various types of cases throughout their career. However, hearing a case

where a tenured teacher states a racial comment to her administrators during a heated argument

and then the teacher tries to go against dismissal, is a difficult case. There are two sides that the

judge must take into encounter. One side being for the teacher, because of their freedom of

speech in the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

supporting the teacher. The teacher has a contract and case to backing her up during the hearing.

Their tenure contract and Givhan v Western Line Consolidated School District back up the

teacher. Yet, the judge must also consider the Equal Protection Cause also listed in the

Fourteenth Amendment and cases such as Pickering v. Board of Education, and Garcetti v.

Ceballos as to why the teacher should be dismissed. Deciding if the teacher is going to be

dismissed or not depends on which side of the case is stronger.

After three years a teacher is considered a tenure teacher. (Tenure, n.d.). Once a teacher

becomes tenured they ensure teachers that employment will be terminated and due process

will be provided. (McCarthy, 2009, p. 211) Due process signifies that if anything happens to the

teacher and the school tries to dismiss them, a hearing is mandatory for the teacher. In this case

the tenured teacher has the power of being tenured to support her in the case. As Tenure, n.d.

states teachers who dont murder someone or molest a child or stop showing up for work are

assured of being able to continue in their job for as long as they want and have a secure job.

Since the teacher did none of these acts, she is protected and can keep her job. All she did was

make a statement, there was nothing relating to why she should be dismissed. Administration
ARTIFACT 2 4

cannot dismiss her because she still is required a hearing, in the hearing she can conclude how

she is tenured and safe. She spoke her mind which refers to her First Amendment. This

amendment expresses the ability of free speech, press, assembly, religion (McCarthy, 2009,

p. 7) which is granted for her as a person. Dismissal cannot occur if she is embracing how she

feels, because she is allowed to say whatever she pleases.

For the teachers hearing, she can include the Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated

School District 1979 case. Similar to the teacher going to the hearing, Givhan too was accused of

insulting, hostile, loud, arrogant, racial discriminatory (Givhan v. Western Line Consol.

School Distr, (1979), n.d.) which is a perfect fit for the current case. This case was dismissed and

the teacher intervened in a desegregation action against respondent School District, that her

Fourteenth Amendments were infringed. (Givhan v. Western Line Concol. School Distr.

(1979), n.d.) The Fourteenth Amendments explains two clauses: Equal Protection Clause and

Due Process Clause. As tenure supported the due process, the case with Givhan was for the

Equal Protection Clause. Givhan deserves the right of liberty which the school was trying to take

from her. Her liberty and speech are secured, because the teacher expressed her views. Exactly

as Givhan did, the teacher too can say how the school is trying to take the Equal Protection

Clause that the Fourteenth Amendment includes and how they cannot do that to her.

Although the teacher has valid points and a strong case to why she should not be

dismissed, there is also two cases as to why she should be dismissed. One case being the Garcetti

v. Ceballos case where Ceballos was dismissed because his speech was not protected because

it related to his employment duties. (Garcetti v. Ceballos, 2005) Whenever a public employee
ARTIFACT 2 5

says something to their official duties and are not speaking as a citizen for First Amendment

purposes... the Constitution does not occur from employer discipline. (Garcetti v. Ceballos,

2005) As this teacher stated, that she hated all black folks she was talking during her duty

hours which takes the protection of her First Amendment and makes the amendment not valid

during that time. She stated this comment inside an office like Ceballos did and not publicly

which changed the subject matter.

Another case against this teacher, is the Pickering v. Board of Education case. During this

case Pickering sent a letter to the local newspaper regarding the school boards fiscal policies

funding education and other programs which resulted in his dismissal. In the letter Pickering

wrote false statements damaging the reputations of school board members and district

administrators... (McCarthy, 2009, p. 234) This case summed up is a teacher can be

dismissed if the expression jeopardizes his/her relationship with immediate supervisor or

harmony with coworkers. Sherry, H. (2016) Lecture 2: Nevada Law [PowerPoint Slide, 14]

Obviously the racial statement of the teacher effected the relationship of the teacher towards

administrators as well as other colleagues. Her statement caused negative reactions for everyone

offended by her words. Since the expression jeopardizes the harmony, she should be dismissed.

Since her speech there is a chance of tension, awkwardness or people could feel uncomfortable at

work. This is not acceptable for a school environment, so the school would be best to dismiss the

teacher. Along with this case, the Fourteenth Amendment comes into play with the Equal

Protection Clause. Administration wants to dismiss the teacher because her statement could

mean that she is treating students unfairly. As Brown v. Board of Education was for students
ARTIFACT 2 6

being treated fairly and equally, the teacher is in a case identical to that one which is why

administration does not want to risk the possibility.

Based off of the cases, amendments, and contracts I would not dismiss the teacher. She

used her First Amendment to express her speech. Since the teacher is tenured she has protection

and was not involved in a violent or sexual act, and she continued showing up for work. Her

tenure contract protects her and assures her a job as long as she never committed those crimes

which she did not. Along with her amendments and tenure contract, there was no proof that she

treated students unfairly. Yes, she did state that comment which she should not have done in the

office, but for them to assume she did not treat students fairly based on what color they are is not

right. If administration was worried of unfairness, they should go into the classrooms, keep an

eye on her, or watch how she is with the students to get evidence. They cannot have her

dismissed off a theory they conducted, she has a say too.

ARTIFACT 2 7

References

Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., Thomas, S. B., & McCarthy, M. M. (2009). Legal

rights of teachers and students (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

GARCETTI v. CEBALLOS. (2005). Retrieved April 14, 2016, from

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-473.ZS.html

GIVHAN v. WESTERN LINE CONSOL. SCHOOL DIST. (1979). (n.d.). Retrieved April 14,

2016, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/439/410.html

Kahlenberg, R. (n.d.). Tenure. Retrieved April 14, 2016, from

http://www.aft.org/ae/summer2015/kahlenberg
ARTIFACT 2 8