Teacher loses First Amendment rights

jaeger19 said:

I think it depends on the case.

You see a murder? Sure.

Theft? Sure.

suspect a students father of cheating on his taxes because you see him pay cash? Don't think so.

Suspect a student of being illegal because he is brown? Don't think so

because the child's parents don't speak fluent English? Don't think so.

Do such is disruptive to the student/teacher relationship.

Its the same reason that I and my employees don't immediately report a patient because they admit that occasionally they use illegal drugs. There has to be a level of trust between student and teacher.. and patient and caregiver.

Click to expand...

I agree with your examples as they don't show a reasonable reason for suspicion. Actually, I wouldn't report suspected illegals myself anyway, but a teacher who thinks we should can say so without fear of retribution, at least if we uphold the First Amendment.

Gimmesometruth said:

Already, previously, corrected. Yer once again not reading posts in a thread.

You nor I are referring to "all info", you were referring to a fairly specific scenario where HIPAA and state regs do apply. I'm wondering when you and your employees do immediately report a patient because they admit that occasionally they use illegal drugs, because in most circumstances that would be a violation of fed and state laws...not to mention "trust".

Click to expand...

Well Gimmee.. it depends on the state mandatory reporting laws. So each state is different.

And no Gimmee.. I was not referring to a very specific scenario. It was a general comment.

Dittohead not! said:

I agree with your examples as they don't show a reasonable reason for suspicion. Actually, I wouldn't report suspected illegals myself anyway, but a teacher who thinks we should can say so without fear of retribution, at least if we uphold the First Amendment.

Click to expand...

I think it depends on the venue in which she says it.. etc.

In my opinion.. since there was obviously a disruption of school.. it was appropriate for the school to put her on administrative leave pending a investigation. IF ALL she did was to post her comments on facebook. And not demonstrate poor judgment in the class room with elementary school age children. Then there is no reason for her to get fired. But the first amendment does not protect all speech in all venues.

jaeger19 said:

Well Gimmee.. it depends on the state mandatory reporting laws. So each state is different.

Click to expand...

State laws on medical information disclosure only supplement federal regs, they cannot lower the bar. A patient confiding during a visit about their past or current use is GENERALLY covered by HIPAA in that the doctor or his staff are NOT allowed to disclose that info to anyone without the patient authorizing it. Again, GENERALLY, if you or your "cohorts" did such a thing without permission, you are violating federal regs and put the licences of staff or facility in jeopardy.

And no Gimmee.. I was not referring to a very specific scenario. It was a general comment.

Click to expand...

You just made yer case weaker, GENERALLY doing what you describe is not allowed under federal regs, and state regs GENERALLY make such a disclosure even worse.

Gimmesometruth said:

State laws on medical information disclosure only supplement federal regs, they cannot lower the bar. A patient confiding during a visit about their past or current use is GENERALLY covered by HIPAA in that the doctor or his staff are NOT allowed to disclose that info to anyone without the patient authorizing it. Again, GENERALLY, if you or your "cohorts" did such a thing without permission, you are violating federal regs and put the licences of staff or facility in jeopardy.

You just made yer case weaker, GENERALLY doing what you describe is not allowed under federal regs, and state regs GENERALLY make such a disclosure even worse.

Click to expand...

I never said they lower the bar.. but its not as easy as you think. A minor child who is your patient
divulges that they were given illegal drugs by a family member. Mandatory reporting for child abuse? Some states.. yes definitely. Protected health information and covered by HIPAA? Possible as well.

Patient comes in and getting on the exam table, a bag of pot falls out of their pocket. Protected information? Definitely not. Could I call police on that? Definitely. Would that hurt the patient relationship? Definitely.

jaeger19 said:

I never said they lower the bar.. but its not as easy as you think. A minor child who is your patient
divulges that they were given illegal drugs by a family member. Mandatory reporting for child abuse? Some states.. yes definitely. Protected health information and covered by HIPAA? Possible as well.

Patient comes in and getting on the exam table, a bag of pot falls out of their pocket. Protected information? Definitely not. Could I call police on that? Definitely. Would that hurt the patient relationship? Definitely.

Click to expand...

And as per usual, neither example represent anything like what you described:

report a patient because they admit that occasionally they use illegal drugs

you have moved the goal post to another dimension.

Gimmesometruth said:

And as per usual, neither example represent anything like what you described:

report a patient because they admit that occasionally they use illegal drugs

you have moved the goal post to another dimension.

Click to expand...

Whatever makes you feel better Gimmee.

I and I think everyone else here understands the point I made.

Dittohead not! said:

Teachers aren't allowed to use their classrooms as a podium for preaching political or religious viewpoints, and rightly so. Anyway, they aren't supposed to do so, even though no doubt some do get away with it.

But this is not a case of using the classroom, but of a post made on social media.

This is wrong. Regardless of whether you or I agree with her or not, the school district is just wrong.

First-Grade Teacher Suspended Over 'Illegal Aliens' Post: School District



We've already started chipping away at the fourth and fifth amendments. Now, it appears that the first is also under attack. Will the citizenry stand up, or will we just ignore the situation until none of us have any rights left?

Click to expand...

Is this really an issue of the first amendment? The government did not prosecute her for her comments (last I checked) and are school districts part of the federal government?

And who knows what she has mentioned in her contract.

jaeger19 said:

Whatever makes you feel better Gimmee.

I and I think everyone else here understands the point I made.

Click to expand...

Everyone understands that it is HIPAA and state regs that controls the scenario, not "trust". Everyone understands that yer always winging it.

Peter King said:

Is this really an issue of the first amendment? The government did not prosecute her for her comments (last I checked) and are school districts part of the federal government?

And who knows what she has mentioned in her contract.

Click to expand...

School districts are not federal, but are government entities. Anyway, the First Amendment doesn't just say that the federal government can't infringe on free speech, does it?

Perhaps she did sign away her rights in the contract. It's not likely, but it is possible.

Gimmesometruth said:

Everyone understands that it is HIPAA and state regs that controls the scenario, not "trust". Everyone understands that yer always winging it.

Click to expand...

Yeah no gimmee.

Everyone except apparently not you Gimmee.. understand that it IS about trust with your provider and not just HIPAA or State reporting regulations that controls the scenario. .

Visbek said:

sigh

If that was the case, then why would we be considering the 1st Amendment in any of these cases?

Do you really need me to dig up examples of people being disciplined for statements, rather than actions that resulted from those statements? What are these "non-speech facts" anyway? You do realize that no one else uses that term?

For example, a teacher was fired this week for a 2013 Tweet, sent to a friend who was traveling to Palestine, to “kill some Jews.” She was obviously joking, albeit in very bad taste about a sensitive subject; she obviously had not killed any Jews since 2013; her friend did not kill any Jews either. No one had noticed these tweets until a week or two ago. Was she fired because of "non-speech facts?" No. She was obviously fired because of her public statements, not because of some "non-speech facts."

Click to expand...

no, no one has missed that at all. It was right in the Facebook post, it was in the article that discussed it, we've had several people point out that this is discriminatory, etc

Click to expand...

"This," the teacher's Facebook post, was not discriminatory. This is a factually baseless assertion.

If that was the case, then why would we be considering the 1st Amendment in any of these cases?

Click to expand...

The Court decisions have unequivocally stated, repeatedly, discipline of a public employee because of the public employee's message/speech cannot rest alone upon the speech/message of the public employee.

Do you really need me to dig up examples of people being disciplined for statements, rather than actions that resulted from those statements?

Click to expand...

If you want to engage in this exercise in futility, then indulge. The issue isn't whether some public employee has been disciplined by their government employer but whether the discipline by the government employer of the government employee because of the government employee's speech is lawfully permitted. Whether the discipline by the government employer is lawfully permitted is based on those 3 factors announced by the Court. But if you want to be so gracious as to invoke examples of discipline of public employees because of their speech and the discipline was on the basis of the speech alone, and discipline on the basis of the speech alone is not lawful, then commence immediately with such an exercise. I am doubtful, however, you will find many examples, maybe none, in which there is at least a reasonable prima facie showing of the three factors in regards to a public employee being disciplined by its government employer because of the public employee's speech.

What are these "non-speech facts" anyway? You do realize that no one else uses that term?

Click to expand...

Does it matter if no one else does not use the term? The term is an accurate characterization of one of the factors requiring a balancing test. The "non-speech facts" are rather obvious when considering the content of the rule regarding the balancing test.

For example, a teacher was fired this week for a 2013 Tweet, sent to a friend who was traveling to Palestine, to “kill some Jews.” She was obviously joking, albeit in very bad taste about a sensitive subject; she obviously had not killed any Jews since 2013; her friend did not kill any Jews either. No one had noticed these tweets until a week or two ago. Was she fired because of "non-speech facts?" No. She was obviously fired because of her public statements, not because of some "non-speech facts."

Click to expand...

Is this a public employee? I doubt it after the articles I have read. You are referencing a teacher at a private entity, which is not analogous to a public school teacher at a public school, the latter having 1st Amendment free speech rights and the employer subject to the three prong test announced by the Court.

So, you are invoking a non-parallel example when the dialogue is in regards to a public employee, a public school teacher, and the 1st Amendment constraints of the government to punish/discipline its employees because of the employee's speech.

“Due to possible safety and security concerns, as well as concern for disruption of the school environment, this teacher has been placed on administrative leave pending (an) investigation,” Prosser Superintendent Ray Tolcacher said in a statement.

Click to expand...

Well, administrative leave pending investigation is not a huge deal is it? That's their normal reaction to an uproar right?
I do agree its odd that people would protest a teacher who is suggesting people report illegal activity...
They may just let it blow over and reinstate her or move her to a district with less of an issue.

The sad thing about large public exposure (in any organization) is that being right or wrong is largely irrelevant (welcome to politics and power struggles).

jaeger19 said:

Well.. I would argue that here facebook message was not one of public concern. Was she a teacher talking about the what the board of education was spending money on.. as in pickering?

Was she a lawyer discussing with other lawyers how the workplace decided transfers, etc as in Connik?

no.. she was making statements regarding nothing that she had no special knowledge of, no expertise in etc.

There is value in reporting crimes when a crime actually occurs. Flooding the police with unnecessary reports because of "suspicion" actually harms law enforcement.

Click to expand...

Actually you didn't. You made the leap that all speech

Click to expand...

Nope. I didn't make any leap of "all speech," but thanks for your Strawman Argument.

You made the leap that all speech from an employee has more value than the value to the employer in maintaining his/her business. And that's not what the supreme court decisions say.

Click to expand...

No. Once again, another epic fail on your behalf. My remarks do not make any such "leap." I am quite aware of the fact the Court has indeed upheld instances where the value of the speech of the speaker was outweighed by the government's interest to efficiently and effectively provide services to the public.

Well.. I would argue that here facebook message was not one of public concern.

Click to expand...

In the context of today's political climate, her remark does touch upon a public concern. Immigration, illegal immigrants, deportation, etcetera, is a matter of public concern.

Was she a teacher talking about the what the board of education was spending money on.. as in pickering?

Click to expand...

Unpersuasive, as what is a "public concern" is not limited to "spending money" by the "board of education."

no.. she was making statements regarding nothing that she had no special knowledge of, no expertise in etc.

Click to expand...

None of which is required for the speech to be on a matter of public concern.

There is value in reporting crimes when a crime actually occurs.

Click to expand...

There is also value in reporting suspected crime.

Flooding the police with unnecessary reports because of "suspicion" actually harms law enforcement

Click to expand...

Irrelevant as there is no evidence this occurred here and no evidence this is conduct advocated by the teacher.

NotreDame said:

Nope. I didn't make any leap of "all speech," but thanks for your Strawman Argument.



No. Once again, another epic fail on your behalf. My remarks do not make any such "leap." I am quite aware of the fact the Court has indeed upheld instances where the value of the speech of the speaker was outweighed by the government's interest to efficiently and effectively provide services to the public.



In the context of today's political climate, her remark does touch upon a public concern. Immigration, illegal immigrants, deportation, etcetera, is a matter of public concern.



Unpersuasive, as what is a "public concern" is not limited to "spending money" by the "board of education."



None of which is required for the speech be on a matter of public concern.



There is also value in reporting suspected crime.



Irrelevant as there is no evidence this occurred here and no evidence this is conduct advocated by the teacher.

Click to expand...

Good points. You were right on target.

jaeger19 said:

I think it depends on the venue in which she says it.. etc.

In my opinion.. since there was obviously a disruption of school.. it was appropriate for the school to put her on administrative leave pending a investigation. IF ALL she did was to post her comments on facebook. And not demonstrate poor judgment in the class room with elementary school age children. Then there is no reason for her to get fired. But the first amendment does not protect all speech in all venues.

Click to expand...

Say that this teacher had instead made a post noting that there had been several recent burglaries on her side of town. And say that her post urged everyone in town to report any persons engaged in suspicious activities whom they might see in their neighborhoods to a hotline the local police department had set up for that purpose. What fear might that have struck into the hearts of the elementary school-age children in her school--or in other schools in the district--whose parents happened to be burglars? Shouldn't any public school teacher who said something so insensitive and detrimental to the smooth functioning of the schools be punished for it, particularly when she had not advised people to report criminal activity, but rather just people they suspected of it?

The freedom of speech should not include statements which might cause any child to feel anxious about its parents. I say things have come to a pretty pass, if we allow our concern for innocent schoolchildren to become so selective. Whether it is a matter of parents stealing into our country, or parents stealing into other peoples' houses, the rule should be the same. If a teacher should be punished for alarming the children of the one group of parents, she should be punished just the same for alarming the children of the other. How can our public schools function smoothly, if burglars are not allowed to operate without fear that teachers will say things which further scare their children, who are already worried that something bad may happen to Daddy?

NotreDame said:

Nope. I didn't make any leap of "all speech," but thanks for your Strawman Argument.

Click to expand...

Actually you did.. whether you realize it or not is on you.

No. Once again, another epic fail on your behalf. My remarks do not make any such "leap." I am quite aware of the fact the Court has indeed upheld instances where the value of the speech of the speaker was outweighed by the government's interest to efficiently and effectively provide services to the public.

Click to expand...

too funny.. that is what your argument was. and now you are walking it backward. Whatever man...

In the context of today's political climate, her remark does touch upon a public concern. Immigration, illegal immigrants, deportation, etcetera, is a matter of public concern.

Click to expand...

Nope. A teacher is not an immigration official and has no special knowledge regarding immigration law,, who is legal/versus illegal etc. She does not bring forth anything that's pertinent to public concern.. unlike in two other court cases brought up.. a teacher presenting information on the school budget, and a lawyer bringing up transfer/ assignment processes in her job.

Unpersuasive, as what is a "public concern" is not limited to "spending money" by the "board of education

Click to expand...

Nor.. does it encompass everything under the sun. A teacher with no special knowledge of immigration, how to determine someone who is legal etc is not providing speech that's "of public concern".

None of which is required for the speech to be on a matter of public concern.

Click to expand...

Actually yes.. that would be one of the criteria to determine if she was bringing speech of public concern..

There is also value in reporting suspected crime.

Click to expand...

There is also detriment in making multiple reports that are false as well.

Irrelevant as there is no evidence this occurred here and no evidence this is conduct advocated by the teacher.

Click to expand...

Certainly relevant if you are claiming that her speech is of public concern.

matchlight said:

Say that this teacher had instead made a post noting that there had been several recent burglaries on her side of town. And say that her post urged everyone in town to report any persons engaged in suspicious activities whom they might see in their neighborhoods to a hotline the local police department had set up for that purpose. What fear might that have struck into the hearts of the elementary school-age children in her school--or in other schools in the district--whose parents happened to be burglars? Shouldn't any public school teacher who said something so insensitive and detrimental to the smooth functioning of the schools be punished for it, particularly when she had not advised people to report criminal activity, but rather just people they suspected of it?
?

Click to expand...

First you need to make the case that reporting any persons engaged in suspicious activities to a local police hotline.. after a serious of recent burglaries.. is insensitive and detrimental to the smooth function of the school.

In the case of this teacher we have multiple calls from concerned parents. Enough to reasonable prompt an investigation into the behavior of the teacher within the classroom.

How can our public schools function smoothly, if burglars are not allowed to operate without fear that teachers will say things which further scare their children, who are already worried that something bad may happen to Daddy?

Click to expand...

Excuse me.. but do you think then its appropriate for an elementary school teacher to threaten a school child that she is going to turn her Daddy into the police and have him sent to prison? Do you think that is appropriate behavior for a teacher?

Please explain how threatening a school child, especially an elementary school child because of their parents actions or perceived actions is appropriate behavior.

Visbek said:

To the best of my knowledge, if you make a statement in public, and your boss disapproves, you can get fired. Especially if you live in an at-will state.

(Certain forms of speech are protected by the NLRB -- e.g. advocating for a union, or very specific forms of criticism of a company.)

This is not a First Amendment issue. Citizens are protected from government restrictions on speech, but they are not protected from the consequences of speaking in public.

I'd prefer to work for an employer who does not micromanage my social media. I'd also prefer civil rights protections for employees involved in political action. However, it is a reality, and there are many situations where it may be a legitimate action to discipline an employee for public statements.

Click to expand...

It's a First Amendment issue when she works for the state. That, too, is well-established.

Dittohead not! said:

Teachers aren't allowed to use their classrooms as a podium for preaching political or religious viewpoints, and rightly so. Anyway, they aren't supposed to do so, even though no doubt some do get away with it.

But this is not a case of using the classroom, but of a post made on social media.

This is wrong. Regardless of whether you or I agree with her or not, the school district is just wrong.

First-Grade Teacher Suspended Over 'Illegal Aliens' Post: School District



We've already started chipping away at the fourth and fifth amendments. Now, it appears that the first is also under attack. Will the citizenry stand up, or will we just ignore the situation until none of us have any rights left?

Click to expand...

Agreed - it doesn't matter what you believe but this teacher should not have been fired. I see a lawsuit in this school's future and one that she will most likely win or that will be settled out of court. I say kudo's for her for standing up for what she believes in. People need to realize that it is okay to peacefully speak your mind a setting that is not affiliated with an organization. Had this been on her school facebook page then no - she should not have done that. But, if it was her personal facebook page, she has the right to say what she thinks and especially since what she is asking them to do is lawful and protected by our laws.

jaeger19 said:

First you need to make the case that reporting any persons engaged in suspicious activities to a local police hotline.. after a serious of recent burglaries.. is insensitive and detrimental to the smooth function of the school.

In the case of this teacher we have multiple calls from concerned parents. Enough to reasonable prompt an investigation into the behavior of the teacher within the classroom.



Excuse me.. but do you think then its appropriate for an elementary school teacher to threaten a school child that she is going to turn her Daddy into the police and have him sent to prison? Do you think that is appropriate behavior for a teacher?

Please explain how threatening a school child, especially an elementary school child because of their parents actions or perceived actions is appropriate behavior.

Click to expand...

First, a school child should not be on facebook. I believe that you are asked to be 13 years old before opening a facebook account. And second, the parents who brought the child here or came here illegally cannot now claim offense because someone pointing out their illegal actions is harmful to their child. Sorry, it just doesn't work like that. And by the way, shame on the parents for sharing such grown up content with their young child. Perhaps we should look at this as the bigger issue of illegal immigration. When you break the law, just like if you robbed a liquor store and get caught and go to jail, guess what. It is going to be in the news and the children are going to be harmed. Their parents are going to be talked about in school and the child will be talked about in school and the parent may go to jail and the child is then homeless or has to have their lives uprooted etc. Is your point that because someone does something illegal that impacts all the people that care about this person, that it should be silenced and not prosecuted? That is in fact what you are saying. Allow illegal immigration to continue so as not to upset those who are impacted from it? What about the child who has to go to school in a trailer on the school campus with few textbooks and over crowded classrooms because the illegal children are here taking from them what their parents have paid in taxes for them to get a good education. Do you feel sorry at all for them?

The teacher received an appropriate consequence. The first amendment protects me from not going to jail, it does not protect my employment.
I would also predict she knew that as a typical contract makes it pretty clear.


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Whythink said:

The teacher received an appropriate consequence. The first amendment protects me from not going to jail, it does not protect my employment.
I would also predict she knew that as a typical contract makes it pretty clear.


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

The 1st Amendment does protect public employees' employment by prohibiting loss of employment on the basis of speech unless the 3 factor test is met.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EvaPeron said:

First, a school child should not be on facebook. I believe that you are asked to be 13 years old before opening a facebook account. And second, the parents who brought the child here or came here illegally cannot now claim offense because someone pointing out their illegal actions is harmful to their child. Sorry, it just doesn't work like that. And by the way, shame on the parents for sharing such grown up content with their young child. Perhaps we should look at this as the bigger issue of illegal immigration. When you break the law, just like if you robbed a liquor store and get caught and go to jail, guess what. It is going to be in the news and the children are going to be harmed. Their parents are going to be talked about in school and the child will be talked about in school and the parent may go to jail and the child is then homeless or has to have their lives uprooted etc. Is your point that because someone does something illegal that impacts all the people that care about this person, that it should be silenced and not prosecuted? That is in fact what you are saying. Allow illegal immigration to continue so as not to upset those who are impacted from it? What about the child who has to go to school in a trailer on the school campus with few textbooks and over crowded classrooms because the illegal children are here taking from them what their parents have paid in taxes for them to get a good education. Do you feel sorry at all for them?

Click to expand...

The idea that it's undocumented immigrants creating a shortfall in school budgets is so far from anything resembling reality that it's almost silly to respond. But judging by posts here there are probably some dumb enough to believe it. Illegal immigrants do not siphon money from school budgets and they actually do pay SS and Medicare taxes by virtue of their employment in most cases. The only funds used that are uniquely related to their illegal status are administrative costs by ICE to deport them in the event they're arrested.

And FYI, illegal immigration is a civil offense, not a crime. It's also a victimless offense. Comparing it to robbery is patently offensive. Shame on you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dittohead not! said:

Teachers aren't allowed to use their classrooms as a podium for preaching political or religious viewpoints, and rightly so. Anyway, they aren't supposed to do so, even though no doubt some do get away with it.

But this is not a case of using the classroom, but of a post made on social media.

This is wrong. Regardless of whether you or I agree with her or not, the school district is just wrong.

First-Grade Teacher Suspended Over 'Illegal Aliens' Post: School District



We've already started chipping away at the fourth and fifth amendments. Now, it appears that the first is also under attack. Will the citizenry stand up, or will we just ignore the situation until none of us have any rights left?

Click to expand...

Hopefully she sues the school district and wins billions of dollars...