Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District et al.
439 U.S. 410 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public employee does not forfeit their First Amendment protection against governmental abridgment of freedom of speech by choosing to express their views privately to an employer rather than publicly.
Facts:
- Bessie Givhan was a junior high English teacher employed by the Western Line Consolidated School District, which was operating under a federal desegregation order.
- Givhan engaged in a series of private conversations with her school principal.
- During these meetings, Givhan voiced criticisms and concerns about school employment policies and practices that she believed were racially discriminatory.
- The principal described Givhan's manner during these encounters as "insulting," "hostile," "loud," and "arrogant."
- At the end of the 1970-1971 school year, the school district informed Givhan that her teaching contract would not be renewed.
- The official reasons given for her dismissal did not include her private criticisms but cited other issues like a hostile attitude and refusal to cooperate with the administration.
Procedural Posture:
- Bessie Givhan filed a complaint in intervention in an ongoing desegregation lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, seeking reinstatement.
- Following a bench trial, the District Court found the school district violated Givhan's First Amendment rights and ordered her reinstatement.
- The Western Line Consolidated School District, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a public employee's private expression to a superior is not constitutionally protected.
- Bessie Givhan, as petitioner, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the First Amendment's protection of a public employee's speech from employer retaliation extend to speech expressed privately to the employer rather than publicly?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
Yes. A public employee's right to freedom of speech is not lost simply because the views are communicated privately to an employer. The First Amendment protects the "freedom of speech" itself, and neither its text nor prior Supreme Court decisions in cases like Pickering v. Board of Education suggest that this protection is contingent on the employee expressing their views to the public. While cases like Pickering and Perry involved public expression, that was a coincidental fact, not a prerequisite for constitutional protection. The core Pickering balancing test—weighing the employee's interest as a citizen in commenting on matters of public concern against the State's interest as an employer in promoting efficiency—still applies. The case is remanded for the lower court to apply the framework from Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle to determine if the school district would have made the same decision to not rehire her even in the absence of her protected speech.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes. The author agrees with the majority's conclusion that private speech is protected and that a remand is appropriate. Although the district court's finding that Givhan's protected conduct was the "primary" reason for her termination strongly suggests the outcome under the Mt. Healthy test, it is proper to allow the district court to make an explicit finding on that issue. The district court should have the first opportunity to supplement its original findings, with or without new evidence, in light of the Mt. Healthy decision, which was announced after the initial trial.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of public employee speech rights established in Pickering v. Board of Education. It firmly rejects a distinction between public and private speech, ensuring that internal dissent on matters of public concern receives First Amendment protection. This prevents public employers from retaliating against employees for raising good-faith criticisms privately within the chain of command. However, the Court also notes in a footnote that the Pickering balancing analysis might differ for private speech, as the manner, time, and place of the communication can directly threaten an agency's efficiency in ways public speech might not.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District et al. (1979)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"