School teacher says she lost her job after saying 'I honk for peace' during class

[Temporal Renegade]

Wasn't sure if this should have been here, or in the Education section, so I took a gamble.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/osceola/orl-honkerfired1307sep13,0,5116664.story

[slingblade]

With each passing day, I realize how lucky I was they didn't want me.

Really, really lucky.

[Bob Klase]

Mayer, who now lives in Celebration, was fired from her teaching job in Bloomington, Ind., after that 2003 comment. Now she's appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, asserting that her dismissal for expressing her political views violated her First Amendment rights.

"I honk for peace," Mayer, a veteran teacher in her first year at Bloomington, said she told them. She said she also told the students, "People ought to seek out peaceful solutions before going to war."

That's a "political view"? I think the first question the SC will have to answer is why she was fired. If it was for those statements then I think she should get the job back. If it was because she wasn't a good teacher then those statements are irrelevant.

[slingblade]

The easiest thing to say is "s/he was a bad teacher." I'd like to see proof.

[Modified]

The easiest thing to say is "s/he was a bad teacher." I'd like to see proof.

Don't most teachers receive written evaluations?

[Bob Klase]

The easiest thing to say is "s/he was a bad teacher." I'd like to see proof.

No doubt the SC will want to see proof (or at least some evidence). But that's the kind of thing you rarely see in the news articles unless it's proof/evidence of the side the reporter wants to show.

[jsfisher]

No doubt the SC will want to see proof (or at least some evidence). But that's the kind of thing you rarely see in the news articles unless it's proof/evidence of the side the reporter wants to show.

On what basis would the Supreme Court even consider reviewing it? She has alleged wrongful termination based on a four-word comment; the school district has maintained otherwise; all the lower courts have sided with the school district.

Since no court has found her four-word comment germane to her termination, there is no Constitutional issue she raises. There's no new evidence. There is no misinterpretation of law by the lower courts being alleged. So, why would SCOTUS accept her petition?

[KingMerv00]

On what basis would the Supreme Court even consider reviewing it? She has alleged wrongful termination based on a four-word comment; the school district has maintained otherwise; all the lower courts have sided with the school district.

Since no court has found her four-word comment germane to her termination, there is no Constitutional issue she raises. There's no new evidence. There is no misinterpretation of law by the lower courts being alleged. So, why would SCOTUS accept her petition?

According to Westlaw/LexisNexis she lost via summary judgement in trial court. The court claimed that her opinion of the Iraq war was not protected speech during teaching hours.

The 7th Circuit court was forced as a matter of law to look at Ms. Mayer's case in the most positive light possible. They assumed she was fired for her comments. Unfortunately for her, they sided with the lower court and held that the school's behavior was lawful.

474 F.3d 477 if anyone cares.

[madurobob]

Mayer, who now lives in Celebration, was fired from her teaching job in Bloomington, Ind...
Wait - she moved to Celebration, Florida? Isn't that the lily-white far right Disney created "town" with the most controlling HOA rules in the country?

I'd say she's got much tougher battles ahead of her than the SC.

Or maybe she really just wants her job back so she can return to Bloomington.

[jsfisher]

According to Westlaw/LexisNexis she lost via summary judgement in trial court. The court claimed that her opinion of the Iraq war was not protected speech during teaching hours.

The 7th Circuit court was forced as a matter of law to look at Ms. Mayer's case in the most positive light possible. They assumed she was fired for her comments. Unfortunately for her, they sided with the lower court and held that the school's behavior was lawful.

474 F.3d 477 if anyone cares.


Thanks. All good information.

[Checkmite]

Is a bad employee getting fired and later misrepresenting the cause of his/her firing to others (usually to make it the employer's fault) such a rare and hard-to-believe circumstance?

[Temporal Renegade]

Is a bad employee getting fired and later misrepresenting the cause of his/her firing to others (usually to make it the employer's fault) such a rare and hard-to-believe circumstance?

Not really.

I have to admit, I'd love to hear all the information regarding this, form both sides.

[LostAngeles]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/certainty.png

I'd be concerned about my prospects, but boy am I happy I'm planning to be in the safest department ever.

[jsfisher]

Is a bad employee getting fired and later misrepresenting the cause of his/her firing to others (usually to make it the employer's fault) such a rare and hard-to-believe circumstance?

Not so hard to believe at all. Apparently, the courts accepted it as exactly that, too. Who knew the courts could be so perceptive.

[KingMerv00]

Not so hard to believe at all. Apparently, the courts accepted it as exactly that, too. Who knew the courts could be so perceptive.

The school's stance (lifted directly from the trial court decision):

Defendants contend that the reason the School cancelled Ms. Mayer's nonpermanent teaching contract was based upon her inability to work effectively with students and parents. This contention is reflected in the recorded created for this litigation and specifically in the End of Year Report and March 26, 2003 Memo. Defendants further contend that Ms. Mayer refused to follow the directives from her superiors, failed to follow school policy in terms of her absences, and failed to correct these various deficiencies after being apprised of them through multiple evaluations. Defendants assert that Ms. Mayer's conduct easily meets the statutory requirements. Def. Memo in Supp. at 16.

To be fair though, the court made no finding of fact. They simply said that even IF Ms. Mayer is factually correct, her case has no legal standing.

I'm siding with the court on this one. Even if I disagreed with the school's reaction, they have every legal right to do what they did. Like it or not, the court system isn't strictly about fairness...it is about what is legal and what is not.

[ponderingturtle]

The school's stance (lifted directly from the trial court decision):



To be fair though, the court made no finding of fact. They simply said that even IF Ms. Mayer is factually correct, her case has no legal standing.

I'm siding with the court on this one. Even if I disagreed with the school's reaction, they have every legal right to do what they did. Like it or not, the court system isn't strictly about fairness...it is about what is legal and what is not.

This seems like a great way to get rid of tenured teachers. Get them to make a political statement and then fire them.

[ponderingturtle]

Not so hard to believe at all. Apparently, the courts accepted it as exactly that, too. Who knew the courts could be so perceptive.

And this is entirely wrong. THe courts said that fireing her for her political statements was something that the school could do.

[jsfisher]

This seems like a great way to get rid of tenured teachers. Get them to make a political statement and then fire them.

The teacher in question did not have tenure.

And this is entirely wrong. THe courts said that fireing her for her political statements was something that the school could do.

No, the court made no such claim. The court observed that political speech in the classroom was not protected by the US Constitution. On that basis, the court dismissed Ms. Mayer's claim her First Amendment rights had been violated.

As for her firing, Ms. Mayer's claim was that her contract (as a non-permanent, non-tenured teacher) was improperly not renewed. Her claim was dismissed under summary judgment (as were her three other claims), but for this claim the court did make this comment:

Count III warrants dismissal based on a lack of evidence to establish that Plantiff's contract was improperly terminated, in fact, to the contrary, the evidence shows that her termination was based on her inability to work with students and parents.

(Source (http://indianalawblog.com/documents/MonroeSchool.pdf).) (Emphasis added.)

[TragicMonkey]

I work in the private sector. I don't discuss politics, religion, or sex at work. Because of, you know, professionalism. I probably wouldn't get fired for it, (well, maybe for the sex), but I would certainly expect a reprimand. I go to work to work, do my job, get paid. It's inappropriate to discuss such things in the office.

I have every right as a citizen to say whatever I want. I have every right as an employee to get fired for saying whatever I want.

I think this lady is confusing her rights as a citizen with her responsibilities as an employee.

[ponderingturtle]

No, the court made no such claim. The court observed that political speech in the classroom was not protected by the US Constitution. On that basis, the court dismissed Ms. Mayer's claim her First Amendment rights had been violated.

Exactly it is not saying she lied like you claimed earlier. It that the school can fire her for that.

[ponderingturtle]

I work in the private sector. I don't discuss politics, religion, or sex at work.

I wish some people where I worked followed this policy better. Hearing about what O'Riely said last night gets annoying and tiresome fast.

[jsfisher]

Exactly it is not saying she lied like you claimed earlier. It that the school can fire her for that.

Wrong on two counts.

I did not say she lied. I agreed with another poster she may have misrepresented her case. The court seems to have thought so, too.

The court did not (in the Mayer case) conclude her speech was an acceptable basis for her contract not being renewed. The court did, however, say it thought there was evidence she wasn't that good a teacher.

ETA: The speech in question is the "I honk for peace" statement.

[PogoPedant]

I wish some people where I worked followed this policy better. Hearing about what O'Riely said last night gets annoying and tiresome fast.

Indeed.

On the other hand, if I went to work and nobody talked about anything but HLDs, LLDs, UCs, and UISs all day, I would probably be a lot less productive.

Don't underestimate the power of not being a tool.

[Checkmite]

This seems like a great way to get rid of tenured teachers. Get them to make a political statement and then fire them.

Ah, so the school paid off the students in her class to get her to say something political. I got it.

[slingblade]

I know: let's all ponder the sad state of American education and wonder why.....

[Temporal Renegade]

I know: let's all ponder the sad state of American education and wonder why.....

More than you know; seems that my high school had a student from the early '70s, who ended up being a serial killer.

[Bob Klase]

More than you know; seems that my high school had a student from the early '70s, who ended up being a serial killer.

Serial killers need an education too. You expect them to go to a private school?

[Temporal Renegade]

Serial killers need an education too. You expect them to go to a private school?

Well, that's true; after all, people skills are important...

[Mycroft]

What I think is disappointing is the article never explains the context of this weird political message.

I can see both sides of this argument. On one side, I'm not so hot on teachers being political. On their own time, sure, but in the classroom they should be objective. On the other side, this particular political statement is so innocuous I can't imagine how anyone would have made an issue over it much less fired anyone.

Wouldn't it be nice if the reporter did his job and explained a bit more?

[Cain]

So this is how the communist left is indoctrinating children to hate America these days.

[slingblade]

My god, the Red Menace is so 50 years ago.