William Allan Kritsonis, PhD-freedom of Expression Employees Ppt]

8/20/2019 William Allan Kritsonis, PhD-freedom of Expression Employees Ppt]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/william-allan-kritsonis-phd-freedom-of-expression-employees-ppt 1/12

PUBLIC SCHOOL LAW

The Rights of Freedom

Lecture Notes

William Allan Kritsonis, PhD



•Freedom of Speech is entrenched in our UniStates Constitution with the addition of the ‘of Rights’.

•Speech and the freedom thereof were and sis such an important component that the

forefathers and thus “Framers” of the Constiplaced it in the rst amendment of the Bill oRights.



What degree of “free speech” doWhat degree of “free speech” do

employees have?employees have?

o !eachers ha"e the rights ofo !eachers ha"e the rights of

free speech#free speech#

!o what degree of autonom$ do!o what degree of autonom$ doteachers ha"e and what are theteachers ha"e and what are the

repercussions#repercussions#

Should teachers not adhere toShould teachers not adhere to

decorum#decorum#



First AmendmentFirst Amendment

Congress shall ma%e no lawCongress shall ma%e no law

respecting an esta&lishment ofrespecting an esta&lishment of

religion' or prohi&iting the freereligion' or prohi&iting the free

e(ercise thereof) or a&ridginge(ercise thereof) or a&ridging

the freedom of speech' or of thethe freedom of speech' or of the

press) or the right of the peoplepress) or the right of the people

peacea&l$ to assem&le' and topeacea&l$ to assem&le' and topetition the *o"ernment for apetition the *o"ernment for a

redress of grie"ancesredress of grie"ances..



Fourteenth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment

+ll persons &orn or naturali,ed in the+ll persons &orn or naturali,ed in theUnited States' and su&-ect to theUnited States' and su&-ect to the

-urisdiction thereof' are citi,ens of the -urisdiction thereof' are citi,ens of theUnited States and of the State whereinUnited States and of the State wherein

the$ reside. o State shall ma%e orthe$ reside. o State shall ma%e orenforce an$ law which shall a&ridgeenforce an$ law which shall a&ridgethe pri"ileges or immunities of citi,ensthe pri"ileges or immunities of citi,ensof the United States) nor shall an$of the United States) nor shall an$State depri"e an$ person of life'State depri"e an$ person of life'

li&ert$' or propert$' without dueli&ert$' or propert$' without dueprocess of law) nor den$ to an$ personprocess of law) nor den$ to an$ personwithin its -urisdiction the e/ualwithin its -urisdiction the e/ualprotection of the laws.protection of the laws.



Equal Protection and Due ProcessEqual Protection and Due Process

States do ha"e to &eStates do ha"e to &e

su&ordinate andsu&ordinate and

su&ser"ient to Federalsu&ser"ient to Federalguidelines' especiall$ inguidelines' especiall$ in

the arena of ‘0/ualthe arena of ‘0/ual

1rotection’ and ‘ue1rotection’ and ‘ue

1rocess’.1rocess’.



Pickering v !oard of EducationPickering v !oard of Education

US Supreme Court ruling overturning bothUS Supreme Court ruling overturning both

local school board and lower court decision.local school board and lower court decision.

This specifc case involved a teacher who This specifc case involved a teacher who

was dismissed rom his job or sending awas dismissed rom his job or sending aletter critical o the school board to a localletter critical o the school board to a local

newspaper.newspaper.

This specifc case asserted the precedent This specifc case asserted the precedent

that some aspects o speech are protected.that some aspects o speech are protected.



Pickering v !oard of EducationPickering v !oard of Education

contcont Although the case did protect certain aspectsAlthough the case did protect certain aspects

o speech it did not state that teachers haveo speech it did not state that teachers have

unrestricted rights o expression.unrestricted rights o expression.

ustice Thurgood !arshall in writing the ustice Thurgood !arshall in writing theopinion or the court stated "has interests asopinion or the court stated "has interests as

an emplo#er in regulating the speech o itsan emplo#er in regulating the speech o its

emplo#ees that di$er signifcantl# rom thoseemplo#ees that di$er signifcantl# rom those

it possesses in connection with regulation oit possesses in connection with regulation othe speech o the citi%enr# in general.&the speech o the citi%enr# in general.&



"ieto v #an Perlita $#D"ieto v #an Perlita $#D

The 'ieto case involved a supervisor The 'ieto case involved a supervisorthat was fred ater ma(ing allegationsthat was fred ater ma(ing allegationsthat a coach was abusing students.that a coach was abusing students.

The court ruled that 'ieto)s speech The court ruled that 'ieto)s speechwas o public concern but the publicwas o public concern but the publicinterest was outweighed b# theinterest was outweighed b# thedistricts interest in "promoting thedistricts interest in "promoting thepublic services it perorms.&public services it perorms.&

'ieto)s dismissal was upheld.'ieto)s dismissal was upheld.



%onnick v &yers%onnick v &yers

This Supreme Court case handed This Supreme Court case handed

down a ruling based on a case odown a ruling based on a case o

expression in 'ew *rleans.expression in 'ew *rleans.

An assistant district attorne# wasAn assistant district attorne# was

terminated ater being inormed thatterminated ater being inormed that

she would be transerred and thenshe would be transerred and then

she circulated a +uestionnaireshe circulated a +uestionnaireaddressing o,ce operations andaddressing o,ce operations and

policies.policies.



%onnick v &yers cont%onnick v &yers cont

A ederal district court and a court oA ederal district court and a court o

appeals ruled in avor o !#ers.appeals ruled in avor o !#ers.

-eversing the decision the high court-eversing the decision the high court

ruled that an emplo#ee)s speech isruled that an emplo#ee)s speech is

protected when an emplo#ee spea(sprotected when an emplo#ee spea(s

as a citi%en on matters o publicas a citi%en on matters o public

concern but not when heshe onl#concern but not when heshe onl#spea(s o matter o personal interest.spea(s o matter o personal interest.



Protected #peech 'hree Part 'estProtected #peech 'hree Part 'est

/.0 The speech must have involved a/.0 The speech must have involved amatter o public concern.matter o public concern.

1.0 The public emplo#ee)s interest in1.0 The public emplo#ee)s interest in

commenting on matters o public concerncommenting on matters o public concernmust outweigh the emplo#er)s interest inmust outweigh the emplo#er)s interest inpromoting e,cienc#.promoting e,cienc#.

2.0 The third prong o the test is based on2.0 The third prong o the test is based on

causation3 the emplo#ee)s speech mustcausation3 the emplo#ee)s speech musthave motivated the decision to dischargehave motivated the decision to dischargethe emplo#ee.the emplo#ee.

William Allan Kritsonis, PhD-freedom of Expression Employees Ppt]

Documents

Transcript of William Allan Kritsonis, PhD-freedom of Expression Employees Ppt]