# data[].attributes.body
This website provides an overview of different teacher rights and freedoms. Topics discussed include constitutional rights, teaching certificate denial and revocation, tenure, teacher freedoms, etc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Teacher Rights

If you have any questions regarding Teacher Rights or School Staff Rights , please contact us for a FREE TEACHER OR STAFF RIGHTS CONSULTATION.

Teacher and School Staff Constitutional Rights.
Constitutional provisions provide protection to teachers and school staff at public schools that are generally not available to teachers at private schools. Since public schools are state entities, constitutional restrictions on state action limit some actions that public schools may take with respect to teachers or other employees.

Rights that are constitutional in nature include the following:
* Substantive and procedural due process rights, including the teacher right to receive notice of termination and right to hearing
* Freedom of expression and association provided by the First Amendment
* Academic freedom, a limited concept recognized by courts based on principles of the First Amendment
* Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by school officials of a teacher's personal property

Though private school teachers do not generally enjoy as much of the constitutional protection as public school teachers, statutes may provide protection against discrimination. The CIVIL RIGHTS Act of 1964, for example, protects teachers at both public and private schools from racial, sexual, or religious discrimination. Private school teachers may also enjoy rights in their contracts that are similar to due process rights, including the inability of a private school to dismiss the teacher without cause, notice, or a hearing.

Denial or Revocation of Teaching Certificate.
Courts have held consistently that teaching certificates are not contracts. Thus, requirements to attain or maintain a certificate may be changed and applied to all teachers and prospective teachers. The certification process is administered by state certifying agencies in each state, and most of these agencies have been delegated significant authority with respect to the administration of these rules. Despite this broad delegation, however, the state agencies may not act arbitrarily, nor may these agencies deny or revoke certification on an arbitrary basis. Some state statutes provide that a certificate may be revoked for "just cause."

Other common statutory grounds include the following:
* Immoral conduct or indecent behavior
* Incompetency
* Violations of ethical standards
* Unprofessional conduct
* Misrepresentation or fraud
* Willful neglect of duty

Teacher Tenure.
Most states protect teachers in public schools from arbitrary dismissal through tenure statutes. Under these tenure statutes, once a teacher has attained tenure, his or her contract renews automatically each year. School districts may dismiss tenured teachers only by a showing of cause, after following such procedural requirements as providing notice to the teacher, specifying the charges against the teacher, and providing the teacher with a meaningful hearing. Most tenure statutes require teachers to remain employed during a probationary period for a certain number of years. Once this probationary period has ended, teachers in some states will earn tenure automatically. In other states, the local school board must take some action to grant tenure to the teacher, often at the conclusion of a review of the teacher's performance. Tenure also provides some protection for teachers against demotion, salary reductions, and other discipline. However, tenure does not guarantee that a teacher may retain a particular position, such as a coaching position, nor does it provide indefinite employment.

Prior to attaining tenure, a probationary teacher may be dismissed at the discretion of the school district, subject to contractual and constitutional restrictions. Laws other than those governing tenure will apply to determine whether a discharge of a teacher is wrongful. If a probationary teacher's dismissal does not involve discrimination or does not violate terms of the teacher's contract, the school district most likely does not need to provide notice, summary of charges, or a hearing to the teacher.

In the absence of a state tenure STATUTE, a teacher may still attain de facto tenure rights if the customs or circumstances of employment demonstrate that a teacher has a "legitimate claim of entitlement for job tenure." The United States Supreme Court recognized this right in the case of Perry v. Sindermann, which also held that where a teacher has attained de facto tenure, the teacher is entitled to due process prior to dismissal by the school district.

State laws do not govern the tenure process at private schools. However, a contract between a private school district and a teacher may provide tenure rights, though enforcement of these rights is related to the contract rights rather than rights granted through the state tenure statute.

Teacher Dismissal.
A school must show cause in order to dismiss a teacher who has attained tenure status. Some state statutes provide a list of circumstances where a school may dismiss a teacher. These circumstances are similar to those in which a state agency may revoke a teacher's certification.

Some causes for dismissal include the following:

* Immoral conduct
* Incompetence
* Neglect of duty
* Substantial noncompliance with school laws
* Conviction of a crime
* Insubordination
* Fraud or misrepresentation

Due Process Rights of Teachers and School Staff.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like its counterpart in the Fifth Amendment, provides that no state may "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This clause applies to public school districts and provides the minimum procedural requirements that each public school district must satisfy when dismissing a teacher who has attained tenure. Note that in this context, due process does not prescribe the reasons why a teacher may be dismissed, but rather it prescribes the procedures a school must follow to dismiss a teacher. Note also that many state statutory provisions for dismissing a teacher actually exceed the minimum requirements under the Due Process Clause.

The United States Supreme Court case of Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill is the leading case involving the question of what process is due under the Constitution. This case provides that a tenured teacher must be given oral or written notice of the dismissal and the charges against him or her, an explanation of the EVIDENCE obtained by the employer, and an opportunity for a fair and meaningful hearing.

Teacher Contracts.
The law of contracts applies to contracts between teachers and school districts. This law includes the concepts of offer, acceptance, mutual ASSENT, and consideration. For a teacher to determine whether a contract exists, he or she should consult authority on the general law of contracts. This section focuses on contract laws specific to teaching and education.

Ratification of Contracts by School Districts.
Even if a school official offers a teacher a job and the teacher accepts this offer, many state laws require that the school board ratify the contract before it becomes binding. Thus, even if a principal of a school district informs a prospective teacher that the teacher has been hired, the contract is not final until the school district accepts or ratifies the contract. The same is true if a school district fails to follow proper procedures when determining whether to ratify a contract.

Teacher's Handbook as a Contract.
Some teachers have argued successfully that provisions in a teacher's handbook granted the teacher certain contractual rights. However, this is not common, as many employee handbooks include clauses stating that the handbook is not a contract. For a provision in a handbook to be legally binding, the teacher must demonstrate that the actions of the teacher and the school district were such that the elements for creating a contract were met.

Breach of Teacher Contract.
Either a teacher or a school district can breach a contract. Whether a breach has occurred depends on the facts of the case and the terms of the contract. Breach of contract cases between teachers and school districts arise because a school district has terminated the employment of a teacher, even though the teacher has not violated any of the terms of the employment agreement. In several of these cases, a teacher has taken a leave of absence, which did not violate the employment agreement, and the school district terminated the teacher due to the leave of absence. Similarly, a teacher may breach a contract by resigning from the district before the end of the contract term (usually the end of the school year).

Remedies for Breach of Contract.
The usual remedy for breach of contract between a school district and a teacher is monetary damages. If a school district has breached a contract, the teacher will usually receive the amount the teacher would have received under the contract, less the amount the teacher receives (or could receive) by attaining alternative employment. Other damages, such as the cost to the teacher in finding other employment, may also be available. Non-monetary remedies, such as a court requiring a school district to rehire a teacher or to comply with contract terms, are available in some circumstances, though courts are usually hesitant to order such remedies. If a teacher breaches a contract, damages may be the cost to the school district for finding a replacement. Many contracts contain provisions prescribing the amount of damages a teacher must pay if he or she terminates employment before the end of the contract.

Teacher Freedom from Discrimination.
The EQUAL PROTECTION Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution protects teachers at public schools from discrimination based on race, sex, and national origin. These forms of discrimination are also barred through the enactment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was amended in 1972 to include educational institutions. This law provides that it is an unlawful employment practice for any employer to discriminate against an individual based on the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of the individual. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 provides protection against discrimination based on sex at educational institutions that receive federal financial assistance. Title VII and IX also prohibit SEXUAL HARASSMENT in the workplace.

A teacher who has been subjected to discrimination has several causes of action, though proof in some of these cases may be difficult. A teacher may bring a cause of action under section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code for deprivation of rights under the Equal Protection Clause (or other constitutional provision). However, to succeed under this cause of action, the teacher would need to prove that the school had the deliberate intent to discriminate. Similarly, a teacher bringing a claim under Title VII must demonstrate that the reasons given by a school for an employment decision were false and that the actual reason for the decision was discrimination.

Teacher Academic Freedom.
Teachers in public schools have limited freedoms in the classroom to teach without undue restrictions on the content or subjects for discussion. These freedoms are based on rights to freedom of expression under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. However, the concept of academic freedom is quite limited. The content taught by a teacher must be relevant to and consistent with the teacher's responsibilities, and a teacher cannot promote a personal or political agenda in the classroom. Factors such as the age, experience, and grade level of students affect the latitude in which a court will recognize the academic freedom of a teacher.

Teacher Freedom of Expression.
A leading case in First Amendment JURISPRUDENCE regarding protected forms of expression is Pickering v. Board of Education. This case involved a teacher whose job was terminated when he wrote to a local newspaper an editorial critical of the teacher's employer. The Supreme Court held that the school had unconstitutionally restricted the First Amendment rights of the teacher to speak on issues of public importance. Based on Pickering and similar cases, teachers generally enjoy rights to freedom of expression, though there are some restrictions. Teachers may not materially disrupt the educational interest of the school district, nor may teachers undermine authority or adversely affect working relationships at the school.

Teacher Freedom of Association.
Similar to rights to freedom of expression, public school teachers enjoy rights to freedom of association, based on the First Amendment's provision that grants citizens the right to peaceful assembly. These rights generally permit public school teachers to join professional, labor, or similar organizations; run for public office; and similar forms of association. However, teachers may be required to ensure that participation in these activities is completely independent from their responsibilities to the school.

Teacher Freedom of Religion.
The First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provide protection against religious discrimination by school districts against teachers. Teaches may exercise their religious rights, though there are certain restrictions to such rights. This existence of restrictions is particularly relevant to the public schools, since public schools are restricted from teaching religion through the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Thus, for example, a teacher is free to be a practicing Christian, yet the teacher cannot preach Christianity in the classroom.

Teacher Privacy Rights.
Teachers enjoy limited rights to personal privacy, though courts will often support disciplinary action taken by a school district when a teacher's private life affects the integrity of the school district or the effectiveness by which a teacher can teach. Thus, for example, a teacher may be terminated from his or her position for such acts as ADULTERY or other sexual conduct outside marriage, and courts will be hesitant to overrule the decisions of the school board.

Teacher Age.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, with its subsequent amendments, provides protection for teachers over the age of 40 against age discrimination. Under this act, age may not be the sole factor when a school district terminates the employment of a teacher. If a teacher charges a school district with age discrimination, the school district has the burden to show that some factor other than age influenced its decision.

Teacher Pregnancy.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 provides protection for teachers who are pregnant. Under this act, a school district may not dismiss or demote a pregnant teacher on the basis of her pregnancy, nor may a district deny a job or deny a promotion to a pregnant teacher on the basis of her pregnancy.

Illinois Laws Regarding Teachers' Rights.
Each state provides laws governing education agencies, hiring and termination of teachers, tenure of teachers, and similar laws. Teachers should consult with statutes and education regulations in their respective states, as well as the education agencies that enforce these rules, for additional information regarding teachers' rights. Moreover, teachers should review their contracts, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, and/or employee handbook for specific provisions that may have been included in an agreement. In Illinois, th Teacher's certificate may be revoked or suspended for immorality, health condition detrimental to students, incompetence, unprofessional conduct, neglect of duty, willful failure to report CHILD ABUSE, conviction of certain sex or narcotics offenses, or other just cause. Teachers may be dismissed on similar grounds.

Additional Teacher Rights Resources.
* Deskbook Encyclopedia of American School Law. Oakstone Legal Publishing, 2001.
* Education Law. Rapp, James A., Lexis Publishing, 2001.
* Education Law, Second Edition. Imber, Michael, and Tyll Van Geel, 2000.
* The Law of Public Education, 4th Ed. Reutter, E. Edmund, Jr., Foundation Press, 1994.
* Private School Law in America, 12th Ed. Oakstone Legal and Business Publishing, 2000.
* School Law and the Public Schools: A Practical Guide for Educational Leaders. Essex, et al., 1999.
* Teachers and the Law. Louis, Schimmel, and Kelly, Addison Wesley Longman, 1999.

Teacher Rights Organizations.
* American Association of School Administrators
*American Federation of Teachers
*Education Law Association
*Education Policy Institute
-National Education Association

If you feel that one of your Teacher Rights or School Staff Rights has been violated, please contact us for aFREE TEACHER RIGHTS OR SCHHOL STAFF CONSULTATION.

Teacher Rights Links

Education Rights © 2018 | Privacy Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teacher Rights experience for teachers seeking free Teacher Rights consultation from best in class Teacher Rights expert and Teacher Rights attorney

# data[].attributes.headline
Court Cases Involving Teacher Expressive Rights

# data[].attributes.subject
Court Cases Involving Teacher Expressive Rights

# data[].attributes.body
This website provides an overview of different court cases that cover different teacher rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In American jurisprudence, public school teachers do not forfeit all of their First Amendment rights to free expression when they accept employment. In 1979, an African-American school teacher in a newly integrated school was fired after complaining privately to a superior about discrimination. The Supreme Court decided that public employees do not forfeit First Amendment protection just because they communicate privately to a superior. In this photo, a grammar school teacher teaches in an integrated class in 1969. (AP Photo, used with permission from the Associated Press)

In American jurisprudence, public school teachers, as public employees, do not forfeit all of their First Amendment rights to free expression when they accept employment. Both in pursuing and in imparting knowledge to others, public school teachers share some of the academic freedoms exercised by their college and university counterparts, albeit with limitations sometimes justified by the immaturity of their students. The courts have ruled on several cases involving teachers' expressive rights.

Pickering established that teachers had First Amendment rights

In Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that an Illinois high school science teacher, Marvin Pickering, had a First Amendment right to send a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. Pickering had been dismissed for sending a letter that criticized the school board for its allocations of funds for academics and athletics. In his majority opinion for the Court, Justice Thurgood Marshall agreed that Pickering's First Amendment rights had been violated. He wrote that "the interest of the school administration in limiting teachers' opportunities to contribute to public debate is not significantly greater than its interest in limiting a similar contribution by any member of the general public."

A year after Pickering the Court reiterated that teachers possess First Amendment rights in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). Although Tinker involved student speech, the Court wrote, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

In Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the First Amendment claim of a public school teacher in Mississippi who had been discharged after complaining to her principal about racial discrimination. The Court explained that a public school teacher does not lose her free speech rights simply because she chose to speak on an issue of public concern to her employer directly rather than to the public at large.

Although Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) involved student speech, the Court wrote, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." In this 2013 photo, Mary Beth Tinker shows an old photograph of her with her brother John Tinker. When the school suspended the Tinkers for speaking out against the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school, they took their free speech case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, used with permission from the Associated Press)

established that schools can regulate school-sponsored speech

Other courts, when evaluating teachers' First Amendment claims, have looked to another case involving student speech as a precedent. In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988), the Supreme Court ruled that public school officials can regulate school-sponsored student speech as long as there is a legitimate educational purpose for their action.

Several lower courts have also applied Hazelwood to public school teachers for not appropriately monitoring their students' classroom expression. In Lacks v. Ferguson Reorganized School District R-2 (8th Cir. 1998), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that a public school in Missouri could discharge an English teacher for failing to censor her students' written works. Applying Hazelwood, the Eighth Circuit wrote, "A flat prohibition on profanity in the classroom is reasonably related to the legitimate pedagogical concern of promoting generally accepted social standards."

In Miles v. Denver Public Schools (10th Cir. 1991), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals applied Hazelwood to conclude that a public school teacher could be disciplined for talking about declining discipline and passing along a rumor about students having sex on a tennis court. "Because of the special characteristics of a classroom environment, in applying Hazelwood instead of Pickering we distinguish between teachers' classroom expression and teachers' expression in other situations that would not reasonably be perceived as school-sponsored," the appeals court explained.

Although the principle of academic freedom usually holds in university settings, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in Bishop v. Aronov (11th Cir. 1991), also used the Hazelwood standard when evaluating the First Amendment claim of a university professor arising out of in-class instruction.

In this photo, Tammy Hawkins, editor of the Hazelwood East High School newspaper, Spectrum, holds a copy of the paper in 1988. The school was involved in a case that has been used to evaluate teachers' First Amendment claims. In this case, the Court ruled that public school officials can regulate school-sponsored student speech as long as there is a legitimate educational purpose for their action. Several lower courts have also applied Hazelwood to public school teachers for not appropriately monitoring their students' classroom expression. (AP Photo/James A. Finley, used with permission from the Associated Press)

Public employees no longer retain First Amendment protection for speech as part of their official duties

Teachers asserting a First Amendment violation must now clear an additional hurdle, as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006). In Garcetti the Court ruled that public employees do not retain First Amendment protection for speech as part of their official job duties.

The question remains whether Garcetti should apply in the academic setting, where academic freedom introduces another level of constitutional concern. The majority acknowledged this distinction in stating "there is some argument that expression related to academic scholarship or classroom instruction implicates additional constitutional interests that are not fully accounted for by this Court's customary employee-speech jurisprudence." Commentator Karen Daly notes that "Academic freedom is an ill-defined concept, especially when imported from the university campus to secondary and elementary schools." Only time will tell which standard - the Pickering or the Hazelwood standard - will apply to the majority of public school teachers' First Amendment claims and whether Garcetti will have an indelible effect.

Garcetti has been used to limit classroom speech

Several lower courts have applied the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Garcetti ruling broadly to limit teacher classroom speech.For example, the Seventh Brown v. Chicago Bd. of Educ. (7 Cir. 2016) that a public school teacher did not have a First Amendment claim when his principal disciplined him for using the N-word in a well-intentional lecture instructing students about not using racial slurs. Because of Garcetti, "Brown's First Amendment claim fails right out of the gate," the appeals court wrote.

Many teachers have fared poorly in First Amendment lawsuits after being disciplined for social media posts. Many courts show deference to school officials in disciplining teachers for speech deemed inappropriate or likely to cause problems at school.

The area of teacher free-speech rights is still evolving. Lower courts use a variety of standards from cases such as Pickering, Hazelwood, and Garcetti. Supreme Court review would provide much-needed guidance.

. is a law professor at Belmont who publishes widely on First Amendment topics. He is the author of a 12-lecture audio course on the First Amendment entitled Freedom of Speech: Understanding the First Amendment (Now You Know Media, 2018). He also is the author of many First Amendment books, including The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech (Thomson Reuters, 2012) and Freedom of Speech: Documents Decoded (ABC-CLIO, 2017). This article was originally published in 2009.​

Send Feedback on this article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In American jurisprudence, public school teachers do not forfeit all of their First Amendment rights to free expression when they accept employment. In 1979, an African-American school teacher in a newly integrated school was fired after complaining privately to a superior about discrimination.

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers to have the right to use social media personally. However, teachers can get themselves in trouble with their districts by posting inappropriate material on social media. This blog gives 10 rules that teachers should follow while using social media.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An estimated 74% of Americans over the age of 18 use social networking websites. Naturally, some of these adults are educators. But with news stories of teachers being fired or disciplined for tweets, status updates, and Instagram photos becoming more common, educators can be (understandably) anxious when using social media.

Below are some cardinal rules educators must know about using social media. Following these rules may save you from being fired one day!

1. Know your school, county, and state's social media guidelines for employees. There may already be rules set in place by your employer regarding status updates, profile pictures, and more.

2. Do not "friend" or "follow" students on your personal social media accounts! Implement a rule that students can follow or friend you only after they graduate.

On Twitter, you may have to block students from following you. Facebook lets you decide who you are friends with, but will also automatically allow anyone that attempts to friend you become a follower of your profile. This means students that attempt to friend you might automatically see your status updates. Learn how to block these students here.

3. Keep your profile pictures clean. Your profile picture should never show alcohol, drugs, or anything that can be misconstrued as a gang sign (remember, administrators in central offices often lack a sense of humor). Even if you have your profile locked down for privacy, your profile picture can still appear on search engines.

4. Do not affiliate yourself with your school on a personal profile. List your employment as "Teacher at XXX County Schools" or not at all.

5. Do not geo-tag your posts with your school location. This will lead students right to your posts.

6. Remember, it is possible to take a screen shot on Snapchat. "Snaps" or Snapchat posts can last forever.

7. Set your Instagram account to private. That way, you must approve of anyone who views your posts. And remember, if you link your Instagram account with your Twitter or Facebook accounts, students may be able to see individual Instagram posts without accessing your entire profile.

8. Never mention your school in any post. Even with privacy settings, your post could be found on search engines.

9. Never complain about your job online, especially if you are followed by your school and/or co-workers. This is a good practice for all professionals, not just teachers!

10. Never, ever, ever post photos of your students on social media! Each parent has their own personal beliefs about posting their child's likeness online. Some parents overshare while others don't want their children online at all. It is not your place to post their children online. You are also violating a student's privacy by doing this. Not only are you sharing their location information (if your location/school is listed in your profile, that child is now associated with that location/school), they may not feel comfortable having photos of themselves online.
Experienced educators, do you have any "rules" for social media to suggest to your fellow educators? Let us know in the comments below!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Social Media Rules for Teachers - The ABCTE Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An estimated 74% of Americans over the age of 18 use social networking websites. Naturally, some of these adults are educators. But with news stories of teachers being fired or disciplined for tweets, status updates, and Instagram photos becoming more common, educators can be (understandably) anxious when using social media.

# data[].attributes.body
This website provides an overview of teacher rights and requirements in regards to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Not all teachers qualify for FMLA but most teachers who work 35 hours a week, 9 months out of the year should qualify.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Like many workers, teachers are afforded certain rights related to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). These rights are accompanied by responsibilities; teachers must meet requirements before qualifying for FMLA time off and during periods away from traditional employment. Learning a teacher's requirements while on FMLA can help you prepare for time to spend caring for family members.

FMLA

The Family and Medical Leave Act is designed to help workers accommodate family needs and responsibilities without threatening or penalizing their professional work situation. Teachers -- and other types of employees -- may take unpaid time away from work commitments for up to 12 weeks to accommodate the birth of a child, care for a newborn baby within the first year of birth, or care for a newly placed adoptive or foster child within one year of placement, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Other situations covered under the FMLA include caring for a spouse, child or adult parent with serious medical conditions, a serious personal medical condition or challenges related to a family member going on active military duty.

Eligibility

Not all teachers automatically qualify for FMLA leave. School employees must work at a work site employing at least 50 workers living within a 75-mile radius, be employed for 12 months -- although this doesn't have to be consecutive -- and have worked 1,250 hours in the 12 months prior to the leave. Teachers may count hours worked before and after school toward their 1,250 hours. Typically, teachers working 35 hours per week for nine months of the year will meet this requirement.

Documentation and Notification

While on FMLA leave, teachers must meet appropriate documentation requirements. Schools may request notification of a baby's birth date for FMLA situations arising from a newborn's arrival. Teachers may also be required to submit continuing reports from doctors regarding medical leave to confirm time spent away from work due to medical illness. Teachers are responsible for notification should changes occur that alters their intended return date, whether this is to delay their return or alert school district representatives that they intend to return early.

Substitutes

School districts may temporarily replace teachers on FMLA leave with long-term substitutes or temporary teachers. In this case, teachers will have no additional requirements to fill their position while on FMLA. However, school districts may instead rely on daily or short-term substitute teachers to fill positions. In this instance, teachers may be required to phone the district's substitute system or log onto online substitute registries to enter vacancies for time periods when they will be absent.

About the Author

Morgan Rush is a California journalist specializing in news, business writing, fitness and travel. He's written for numerous publications at the national, state and local level, including newspapers, magazines and websites. Rush holds a Bachelor of Arts from the University of California, San Diego.

Photo Credits

Jupiterimages/Brand X Pictures/Getty Images

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Like many workers, teachers are afforded certain rights related to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). These rights are accompanied by responsibilities; teachers must meet requirements before qualifying for FMLA time off and during periods away from traditional employment. Learning a teacher's requirements while on FMLA can help you prepare for time to spend caring for family members.

# data[].attributes.headline
U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case on Teacher Free-Speech Protection

# data[].attributes.subject
U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case on Teacher Free-Speech Protection

# data[].attributes.body
In March of 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court's refused to hear a case brought forth by an ex-teacher named Jeena Lee-Walker regarding teacher free-speech under the First Amendment. This news article provides background on the case and discusses the Supreme Court's consideration of the Garcetti v. Ceballos case for not hearing the case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up the appeal of a former New York City teacher who traced her dismissal to a clash with administrators over whether it was appropriate to teach her 9th grade students about the "Central Park Five," a group of teenagers convicted of the brutal 1989 rape of a female jogger but later exonerated in the notorious incident.

Lawyers for the ex-teacher, Jeena Lee-Walker, had urged the justices to grant review of her case to decide whether public school teachers have First Amendment free speech rights in the classroom. They argued that the federal appeals courts are in disagreement about whether a key 2006 Supreme Court decision removing First Amendment protection from most on-the-job speech by public employees applies to educators.

The 2006 case, , had involved a prosecutor's office and the court's opinion left some uncertainty about whether it would apply to "scholarship or teaching." Many lower courts, with some exceptions, have applied Garcetti to educators in a way that denies them any First Amendment protection for their teaching.

Lee-Walker's troubles began in 2013 when she was a 9th grade English teacher at the High School for Arts, Imagination, and Inquiry in Manhattan. An assistant principal conducted a classroom observation and noticed a lesson about the Central Park Five, which Lee-Walker was using to teach about the dangers of rushing to judgment and what that meant for black males.

The five black males convicted in the 1989 rape served 10 years in prison before they were exonerated after the actual perpetrator confessed and his story was supported by DNA evidence.

The assistant principal, Christopher Yarmy, questioned whether there had been a rush to judgment and asked Lee-Walker to offer a more balanced lesson, court papers say.

The conflict over the Central Park Five lesson subsided, but Lee-Walker contends she was labeled as obstinate and insubordinate, leading to her eventual non-renewal as a probationary teacher. She sued administrators and the New York City school system alleging that her dismissal was retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights in the classroom.

A federal district court agreed that Lee-Walker's free speech rights were violated, but it granted qualified immunity to the defendants.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in New York City, in 2016 affirmed the qualified immunity finding on different grounds. That court noted that it had not yet decided whether Garcetti applied to classroom instruction and thus there was no clearly established law upon which administrators would understand that Garcetti had removed such protections from the teacher.

The teacher's Supreme Court appeal in Lee-Walker v. New York City Department of Education (Case No. 16-4164) asked the justices to resolve a circuit split over First Amendment protections for classroom instruction.

The advocacy group Foundation for Individual Rights in Education filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Lee-Walker.

"The First Amendment bears a special relationship to the classroom, where academic freedom is essential to facilitating the marketplace of ideas," the brief said. "Despite this important relationship between the First Amendment and academic freedom, the law governing the limits of public educators' freedom of speech in the classroom has been left in a state of uncertainty" since Garcetti, it said.

The New York City school system and the individual defendants did not file a response to the appeal and the high court did not request one.

The justices declined the appeal without comment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case on Teacher Free-Speech Protection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up the appeal of a former New York City teacher who traced her dismissal to a clash with administrators over whether it was appropriate to teach her 9th grade students about the "Central Park Five," a group of teenagers convicted of the brutal 1989 rape of a female jogger but later exonerated in the notorious incident.