Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District facts for kids

Quick facts for kids Givhan v. Western Line Consol. Sch. Dist.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 7, 1978 Decided January 9, 1979
Full case name	Bessie Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District et al
Docket nos.	77-1051
Citations	439 U.S. 410 (more) 99 S. Ct. 693; 58 L. Ed. 2d 619
Prior history	N.D.Miss. rev'd sub nom Ayers et al v. Western Line Consol. Sch. Dist, 555 F.2d 1309 (5th Cir., 1977).
Subsequent history	Verdict for plaintiff, unreported
Argument	Oral argument
Opinion Announcement	Opinion announcement
Holding
Teacher's private complaints to principal regarding racially disparate impact of school district policy, however intemperately expressed, were protected speech on a matter of public concern for which she could not be terminated by her public employer. Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority	Rehnquist, joined by unanimous
Concurrence	Stevens
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Amds. I, XIV

Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District was a big case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1979. It was all about the right to free speech for people who work for the government, like teachers.

The Court decided that a schoolteacher, Bessie Givhan, was wrongly fired. She had complained privately to her principal about school policies she thought were unfair. The Court said that even private conversations can be protected by the First Amendment. Justice William Rehnquist wrote the main decision.

Understanding the Dispute: Bessie Givhan's Story

Bessie Givhan, an African American teacher, started teaching English in Mississippi in 1963. Her school, like many others in the South, was all-black. After a Supreme Court order, schools in her area began to integrate in 1970.

School Changes and Concerns

Bessie Givhan was moved to different schools as the district changed. She ended up at Glen Allan High School. She felt this school was treated unfairly compared to others in the new Western Line School District. It had more black students and teachers but fewer resources.

Givhan often spoke to her principal, James Leach, about these problems. She asked for basic supplies like a blackboard pointer and an eraser. She felt the school was not treating all students and teachers equally. Her complaints made her seem "hostile" to the school leaders.

At the end of the 1971 school year, Givhan was told her contract would not be renewed. The school district said she had an "insulting and hostile attitude." They also mentioned she refused to give standardized tests and didn't cooperate.

The Case in Lower Courts

Bessie Givhan took her case to court. She said her firing was unfair and violated her rights.

District Court Decision

Givhan argued that her firing violated her First Amendment right to free speech. She also said it went against her due process rights. This means the government must follow fair rules when taking away someone's rights.

The school district gave other reasons for firing her. They mentioned she walked out of a meeting once. They also said she threatened not to come to work after integration. Givhan admitted to one small incident about a student's knife, but the court found it wasn't why she was fired.

The district court sided with Givhan. The judge believed the school district wanted to get rid of her because she was a "vocal critic." The court said her complaints to the principal were protected speech. This was based on an earlier case called Pickering v. Board of Education. That case said teachers have free speech rights, even when criticizing their school board.

The court ordered Givhan to get her job back. The school district then appealed this decision.

Appeals Court Reversal

Six years after Givhan was fired, the Appeals Court made its decision. This court looked at whether the school had other good reasons to fire her. They also considered if her private talks with the principal were protected speech.

The Appeals Court decided that Givhan's private discussions with her principal were not protected by the First Amendment. They said that previous cases where teachers won their free speech cases involved public speech. For example, one teacher wrote a letter to a newspaper. Another shared a memo with a radio station.

The court felt that the First Amendment didn't force principals to listen to every private complaint. They said Givhan didn't try to share her views publicly. Because of this, the Appeals Court reversed the District Court's decision.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

Bessie Givhan didn't give up. She asked the Supreme Court to review her case. They agreed to hear it in November 1978. Givhan herself went to Washington to watch the arguments.

Unanimous Decision for Givhan

In January 1979, the Supreme Court announced its decision. All nine justices agreed with Bessie Givhan. They said her private conversations with the principal were protected speech.

Justice William Rehnquist wrote the Court's opinion. He strongly disagreed with the Appeals Court. He said that the First Amendment protects "freedom of speech." It doesn't say this freedom is lost just because a public employee talks privately to their boss.

Rehnquist also said the principal couldn't claim he was an "unwilling recipient" of her views. He had opened his office door to her.

The Court sent the case back to the lower court. They wanted the District Court to decide if the school district had other valid reasons to fire Givhan. This was based on a test from another case, Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a short separate opinion. He clarified that the lower court could use the existing records to make this decision. They didn't need to have a new trial.

What Happened Next

After the Supreme Court's decision, the district court looked at the case again. It found that the school district's other reasons for firing Givhan were just excuses. They were not the real reason.

The court ordered Givhan to get her job back. She also received all the pay she had missed during the 12 years the case was ongoing. The school district appealed again, but in 1982, the Appeals Court upheld the District Court's decision.

Bessie Givhan's Legacy

Even though she hadn't taught for 12 years, Bessie Givhan decided to return to teaching. She wanted to make a positive change for other teachers. She taught for five more years before retiring.

Later, she became a Methodist minister. She has also retired from that role. In an interview in 2006, she said winning at the Supreme Court still "blows my mind in a positive way." She felt it gave her more faith in the justice system. She believed justice can be done and can win if it's in the right hands.

Later Court Cases and Givhan

The Supreme Court has looked at public employee speech in other cases since Givhan. These cases have helped clarify when private speech is protected.

Connick v. Myers

Four years after Givhan, the Court heard Connick v. Myers. This case involved a prosecutor who was fired for giving a questionnaire to her coworkers. The questionnaire asked if they trusted their boss.

The Supreme Court said that much of her questionnaire was not about "matters of public concern." It was more about her personal workplace issues. The Court noted that Givhan's speech was about racial issues in the school. This was clearly a matter of public concern.

Garcetti v. Ceballos

In 2006, the Court decided Garcetti v. Ceballos. This case involved another prosecutor. He claimed he was punished for writing a memo that questioned a search warrant.

The Court said that when public employees speak as part of their official job duties, their speech is generally not protected by the First Amendment. This was different from Givhan's case. Givhan was speaking as a citizen about public issues, even though she was talking to her boss. The prosecutor in Garcetti was writing a memo as part of his job.

Some justices disagreed, saying that Givhan showed that employees can speak as citizens even about things related to their job. But the majority said there's a difference between speaking as a citizen and speaking as an employee doing their job.