freedom of expression employees, dr. kritsonis

8/14/2019 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION EMPLOYEES, Dr. Kritsonis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/freedom-of-expression-employees-dr-kritsonis 1/12

William Allan Kritsonis, PhD



eedom of Speech is entrenched in our Unitedtes Constitution with the addition of the ‘Bill

Rights’.

eech and the freedom thereof were and stilluch an important component that the

efathers and thus “Framers” of the Constitutced it in the first amendment of the Bill of hts.



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

employees have?employees have?

Do Teachers have the rights of Do Teachers have the rights of

free speech?free speech?

To what degree of autonomy doTo what degree of autonomy doteachers have and what are theteachers have and what are the

repercussions?repercussions?

Should teachers not adhere toShould teachers not adhere to

decorum?decorum?



First AmendmentFirst Amendment

Congress shall make no lawCongress shall make no law

respecting an establishment of respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the freereligion, or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof; or abridgingexercise thereof; or abridging

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

peaceably to assemble, and topeaceably to assemble, and topetition the Government for apetition the Government for a

redress of grievancesredress of grievances..



Fourteenth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in theAll persons born or naturalized in theUnited States, and subject to theUnited States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the Statethe United States and of the State

wherein they reside. No State shallwherein they reside. No State shallmake or enforce any law which shallmake or enforce any law which shallabridge the privileges or immunitiesabridge the privileges or immunitiesof citizens of the United States; norof citizens of the United States; norshall any State deprive any person of shall any State deprive any person of

life, liberty, or property, without duelife, liberty, or property, without dueprocess of law; nor deny to anyprocess of law; nor deny to anyperson within its jurisdiction theperson within its jurisdiction theequal protection of the laws.equal protection of the laws.



Equal Protection and Due ProcessEqual Protection and Due Process

States do have to beStates do have to be

subordinate andsubordinate and

subservient to Federalsubservient to Federalguidelines, especially inguidelines, especially in

the arena of ‘Equalthe arena of ‘Equal

Protection’ and ‘DueProtection’ and ‘Due

Process’.Process’.



Pickering v. Board of EducationPickering v. Board of Education

cont.cont. Although the case did protect certain aspectsAlthough the case did protect certain aspects

of speech it did not state that teachers haveof speech it did not state that teachers have

unrestricted rights of expression.unrestricted rights of expression.

Justice Thurgood Marshall in writing the Justice Thurgood Marshall in writing theopinion for the court stated “has interests asopinion for the court stated “has interests as

an employer in regulating the speech of itsan employer in regulating the speech of its

employees that differ significantly from thoseemployees that differ significantly from those

it possesses in connection with regulation of it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general.”the speech of the citizenry in general.”



Nieto v. San Perlita I.S.DNieto v. San Perlita I.S.D

The Nieto case involved a supervisor The Nieto case involved a supervisorthat was fired after making allegationsthat was fired after making allegationsthat a coach was abusing students.that a coach was abusing students.

The court ruled that Nieto’s speech The court ruled that Nieto’s speechwas of public concern but the publicwas of public concern but the publicinterest was outweighed by theinterest was outweighed by thedistricts interest in “promoting thedistricts interest in “promoting the

public services it performs.”public services it performs.” Nieto’s dismissal was upheld.Nieto’s dismissal was upheld.



Connick v. MyersConnick v. Myers

This Supreme Court case handed This Supreme Court case handed

down a ruling based on a case of down a ruling based on a case of

expression in New Orleans.expression in New Orleans.

An assistant district attorney wasAn assistant district attorney was

terminated after being informed thatterminated after being informed that

she would be transferred and thenshe would be transferred and then

she circulated a questionnaireshe circulated a questionnaireaddressing office operations andaddressing office operations and

policies.policies.



Connick v. Myers cont.Connick v. Myers cont.

A federal district court and a court of A federal district court and a court of

appeals ruled in favor of Myers.appeals ruled in favor of Myers.

Reversing the decision the high courtReversing the decision the high court

ruled that an employee’s speech isruled that an employee’s speech is

protected when an employee speaksprotected when an employee speaks

as a citizen on matters of publicas a citizen on matters of public

concern but not when he/she onlyconcern but not when he/she onlyspeaks of matter of personal interest.speaks of matter of personal interest.



Protected Speech Three Part TestProtected Speech Three Part Test

1.) The speech must have involved a1.) The speech must have involved amatter of public concern.matter of public concern.

2.) The public employee’s interest in2.) The public employee’s interest in

commenting on matters of public concerncommenting on matters of public concernmust outweigh the employer’s interest inmust outweigh the employer’s interest inpromoting efficiency.promoting efficiency.

3.) The third prong of the test is based on3.) The third prong of the test is based on

causation; the employee’s speech mustcausation; the employee’s speech musthave motivated the decision to dischargehave motivated the decision to dischargethe employee.the employee.

freedom of expression employees, dr. kritsonis

Documents