Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District
United States Supreme Court
439 U.S. 410, 99 S. Ct. 693, 58 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1979)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Bessie Givhan (plaintiff) was a junior-high-school English teacher in the Western Line Consolidated School District (the district) (defendant). At the end of the 1971 school year, the district declined to renew Givhan’s contract based on interactions between Givhan and her school’s principal. During the interactions, Givhan complained about what she believed to be racially discriminatory employment policies and practices at her school. The principal characterized Givhan’s demands as petty and unreasonable and described Givhan as insulting, loud, hostile, and arrogant. The district was involved in a desegregation action in a Mississippi federal district court at the time, and Givhan intervened in the action, alleging, among other things, that her termination had violated her right of free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Following a bench trial on Givhan’s allegations, the district court found that the primary reason for the district’s decision not to renew Givhan’s contract was her criticism of the district’s policies and practices. The court thus held that Givhan’s termination violated Givhan’s First Amendment rights and ordered that Givhan be reinstated. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that Givhan’s expression was not protected under the First Amendment because she had only expressed her complaints privately to the principal. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.