Running head: TYPES OF LEGAL ACTION

Types of Legal Actions and Forms of Legal Defense

Meghan Arellano
EDU 210 Spring College of Southern Nevada

Running head: TYPES OF LEGAL ACTION

2

Summary
In this essay, we will be talking about a case between a teacher and school faculty. When
a tenured white teacher, Ann Griffin, proclaims that she hated all black folks to her superiors,
Freddie Watts and Jimmy Brothers, it caused a very big scandal. Whats more, the teacher was
working at a mostly African American high school and therefore causing an even bigger scandal
among her coworkers and faculty. Because there were thoughts that the teacher might be racist
and therefore unfit to teach her students without bias, the principal, Watts, suggested that Griffin
were to be dismissed. Were this case to be taken to court, what would be the outcome? This
report will explain what the hypothetical solution is.
Reason for Griffins Termination
Obviously, the principal and assistant principals biggest concern was the fact that
Griffins remark may suggest that she is biased and will affect how she treats and teaches her
students, most who are African Americans. A previous incident also occurred in a similar matter
in the case of Loeffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City School District. In October
2003, a teacher, Jendra Loeffelman from Crystal City Missouri who taught eighth grade English
was asked a series of question during class based on her belief whether or not interracial couples
should get married and/or have children. Loeffelman (2004) responded that she was totally
against it and thought that children who were born into these marriages were dirty. She then
informed her superiors and told them how the students would twist her words (Loeffelman,
2004). She was still asked to take administrative leave since she violated the school policies in
which she had signed in May 2002. She was later terminated when evidence was found of this
violation and after the hearing she asked to take the case to appeals. The court found that the
termination was valid because her comments created a disturbance in the atmosphere of the
school. Students became afraid to go to her class and so the relationship between teacher and

Running head: TYPES OF LEGAL ACTION

3

student ceased to exist (Loeffelman, 2004).

In this next case, while the plaintiffs are not teachers, they do serve to protect the citizens
of their city and therefore has relation to the teachers case. a NYPD officer, and two FDNY
firefighters, Lucurto, Walters and Steiner respectively worked in a mixed-racial environment
from the mid 1990s up until their termination in October 1998 (Locurto, Walters, Steiner, 2006).
In their region of Broad Channel, every year they have a Labor Day parade where the
departments can create floats and would then participate in contests on most creative, etc. For
three years up until they were fired, Locurto, Walters and Steiner created floats together which
depicted harsh stereotypes on 3 separate groups of people. However it wasnt until September
1998 that they took their float too far with a theme they called, Black to the Future. On this
float the men themselves (who are Caucasian) donned black lipstick all over their faces, afros, at
fried chicken and watermelons, etc. After a private citizen obtained video footage of the float and
put it up on the internent, everyone was outraged, including the mayro Giuliani and the
Commisioner of the the Police Department. When taken to court, the plaintiffs tried to cry that
they were protected by the 1st Amendment. However, the courts decided that because the
plaintiffs were employed to protect the citizens, their demonstrations showed racism towards
those citizens and were to be considered endangering the public. Their termination was valid.
(Joseph LOCURTO, Jonathan Walters, and Robert Steiner, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Rudolph
GIULIANI, Mayor of the City of New York, Howard Safir, Commissioner of the New York City
Police Department, The City of New York, and Thomas Von Essen, Commissioner of , 2006)
Reasons Against Griffins Termination
Now, for the opposition or, reasons why the teacher should not be fired are as follows. As
is the case of Rodriguez v. Maricopa County Community College District, 2010, a rather similar
situation happened like that of Watts, Brothers and Griffin. A math teacher by the name of
Kehowski sent three emails to every district employee with an email address to the district.

Running head: TYPES OF LEGAL ACTION

4

Disturbed, many teachers and staff responded back to Walters who would reply back and so on.
The plaintiff, David M. Rodriguez, among other teachers and staff decided to take the district to
court for allowing Walters to not only continue teaching but spewing his racist speech to other
employees as well, by not taking down the forum in which Walters was using. In the end, the
courts said that the defendents did not violate their right to free speech and that because the
forum was public was not under any jursidiction to shut down. Because the defendents and
others responded to emails, it then became a debate and thus was not then considered hate
speech. (David M. RODRIGUEZ; Judy Gonzales Poggi; Jose Mendoza; Frank Rivera; Mario
Quezada; Esther Anaya-Garcia, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT; The
Governing Board of, 2010)
And finally another reason why Griffin should not be fired is because of the 1st
Amendemnt which states the freedom of expression which includes speech, religion, press,
assembly and so forth. Although hate speech is unlawful, because Griffin did not say these
remarks to her students or in front of a crowd, she did not violate the 1st amendment. She has the
right to speak her mind behind closed doors. It was a private matter and not a matter of
public concern. (Cornell University Law School, 1992)
Conclusion Findings
Although I do find the remarks that Griffin made to be very problematic, if this case were
to go to court, I do not think she would be found guilty. In the case of Loeffelman and of the
Locurto, Walters and Steiner, all of their discretions were made very public, in front of the very
people they were supposed to be taking care of. Griffin made her remarks indoors and private.
Yes, to her superiors but still private. They would have no right to tell anyone else what Griffin
had told them and if the end result were her termination, she would have a case against them. She
would win her case and her termination would become void.

Running head: TYPES OF LEGAL ACTION

5

References
Cornell University Law School. (1992). Legal Information Institute. Retrieved February 25,
2014, from Cornell University Website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/
David M. RODRIGUEZ; Judy Gonzales Poggi; Jose Mendoza; Frank Rivera; Mario Quezada;
Esther Anaya-Garcia, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, PlaintiffsAppellees, v. MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT; The
Governing Board of, No. 08-16073. (United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. May
20, 2010).
Frances D. SIVEK v. Jane BALJEVIC., No.CV960391873S. (Superior Court of
Connecticut,Judicial District of New Haven. January 27, 1999).
Jendra LOEFFELMAN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CRYSTAL
CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, No.ED 83337. (Missouri Court of Appeals,Eastern
District,Division Five. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-ofappeals/1109760.html#sthash.0dTlgdzu.dpuf February 24, 2004).
Joseph LOCURTO, Jonathan Walters, and Robert Steiner, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Rudolph
GIULIANI, Mayor of the City of New York, Howard Safir, Commissioner of the New
York City Police Department, The City of New York, and Thomas Von Essen,
Commissioner of , Docket Nos.04-6480-CV(L), 04-6498-CV(CON), 04-6499CV(CON). (United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. April 27, 2006).

Running head: TYPES OF LEGAL ACTION

6