Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle
United States Supreme Court
429 U.S. 274 (1977)
- Written by Whitney Kamerzel , JD
Facts
Fred Doyle (plaintiff) was employed as a teacher by the Mt. Healthy City School Board of Education (the Board) (defendant) for five years. During this time, Doyle was involved in several incidents that showed Doyle’s lack of professionalism, including fighting with teachers, yelling at the cafeteria staff for serving too little pasta, and making obscene gestures toward students. In addition, the Board published a new dress code for teachers, and Doyle called the local radio station to alert the public and criticize it. One month later, when Doyle was up for tenure consideration, the superintendent determined that Doyle and nine other teachers would not be rehired. Doyle received a letter that his firing was due to Doyle’s unprofessionalism, the call to the radio station, and the obscene-gestures incident. Doyle sued the Board under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the federal district court found that Doyle’s call to the radio station, which was protected under the First Amendment, played a substantial part in the Board’s decision to fire Doyle, and that Doyle was therefore entitled to reinstatement and backpay. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.
