Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    Court Case Artifact 1

    Uploaded by

    api-458486566
    Marvin Pickering, a high school teacher, was fired after writing a letter to the newspaper criticizing the school board's allocation of funds between educational and athletic programs. Pickering sued, arguing his termination violated his free speech rights. The Supreme Court ruled that Pickering's speech addressed a matter of public concern and was protected by the First Amendment. As a public employee, Pickering could not be fired for speaking on issues of public interest unless his statements were knowingly or recklessly false. The Court found Pickering's statements were substantially true or made in good faith, so his termination was unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Court Case Artifact 1

    Uploaded by

    api-458486566
    71 views3 pages
    Marvin Pickering, a high school teacher, was fired after writing a letter to the newspaper criticizing the school board's allocation of funds between educational and athletic programs. Pickering sued, arguing his termination violated his free speech rights. The Supreme Court ruled that Pickering's speech addressed a matter of public concern and was protected by the First Amendment. As a public employee, Pickering could not be fired for speaking on issues of public interest unless his statements were knowingly or recklessly false. The Court found Pickering's statements were substantially true or made in good faith, so his termination was unconstitutional.

    Original Title

    court case artifact 1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Marvin Pickering, a high school teacher, was fired after writing a letter to the newspaper criticizing the school board's allocation of funds between educational and athletic programs. Pickering sued, arguing his termination violated his free speech rights. The Supreme Court ruled that Pickering's speech addressed a matter of public concern and was protected by the First Amendment. As a public employee, Pickering could not be fired for speaking on issues of public interest unless his statements were knowingly or recklessly false. The Court found Pickering's statements were substantially true or made in good faith, so his termination was unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    71 views3 pages

    Court Case Artifact 1

    Uploaded by

    api-458486566
    Marvin Pickering, a high school teacher, was fired after writing a letter to the newspaper criticizing the school board's allocation of funds between educational and athletic programs. Pickering sued, arguing his termination violated his free speech rights. The Supreme Court ruled that Pickering's speech addressed a matter of public concern and was protected by the First Amendment. As a public employee, Pickering could not be fired for speaking on issues of public interest unless his statements were knowingly or recklessly false. The Court found Pickering's statements were substantially true or made in good faith, so his termination was unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Running Head: Court Case Artifact 1 1

    Pickering v. Board of Education Brief Court Case: Artifact 1

    Jasmine Vazquez

    College of Southern Nevada


    Court Case Artifact 1 2

    Citation

    Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S 563 (U.S 1968)

    Facts

    The reason for the lawsuit was Freedom of Speech and Wrongful Termination. The

    plaintiff, Marvin L. Pickering, a high school teacher of Illinois, wrote a letter to a newspaper

    stating that the Board of Education, defendant, was allocating money between the educational

    and athletic programs, and he also stated that the superintendent of schools did not allow teachers

    to oppose or criticize the Board of Education. The defendant, the Board of Education, fired

    Pickering for writing and publishing the letter. The Board argued that many statements made in

    the letter were false and that the letter damaged the reputation of the school and community. The

    lower courts decided that the letter was not protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

    Therefore, Pickering appealed to the Supreme Court that his freedom of speech was violated and

    wants is to be reversed.

    Issues

    Is it constitutional to dismiss an employee for being public, about an issue they disagree

    on or criticizing their work place, about a general public issue? Are teachers constitutionally

    obligated to relinquish their rights to the First Amendment, to comment on matter of public

    interest on the count that they work at a school?

    Decision

    No, it is not constitutional to dismiss an employee for being public about issues they

    disagree on. No, teachers are not constitutionally obligated to relinquish their rights to the First

    Amendment, just because they work at a school does not mean that they do not get to comment

    on public interest.
    Court Case Artifact 1 3

    The Supreme Court found that the statements that the Board of Education charged that it

    was false were actually true. Out of the eight statements Pickering made about the Board of

    education four were true and the other four were incorrect in a certain degree. The court decided

    that four incorrect statements were “good-faith” error and they did not have any evidence to

    show otherwise.

    Reason

    If false statements are proven that were created with intent or disregarded the truth the

    State can authorize the recovery of damages. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254

    (1964); St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968). Compare Linn v. United Plant Guard

    Workers, 383 U.S. 53 (1966). Statements made by public officials on public concern must be

    given First Amendment protection. Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964); Wood v. Georgia,

    370 U.S. 375 (1962). Teachers cannot be dismissed for exercising their right to speak of an issue

    of public importance.

    You might also like