562 F. 2d 838 east hartford education association et al., Appellants

562 F.2d 838

EAST HARTFORD EDUCATION ASSOCIATION et al., Appellants,

v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the TOWN OF EAST HARTFORD et al., Appellees.
Facts:

Mr. Brimley is a high school English teacher in East Hartford. He was reprimanded for failing to follow board dress code regulations while teaching English class. In 1972, the East Hartford Board adopted “Regulations for Teacher Dress”, as was Mr. Brimley’s custom before the regulations he continued to wear a jacket and sport coat with no tie and was therefore reprimanded The lack of tie made the attire informal. It was his wish to present himself to his students as a person not tied to “conformity”. He was hoping by dressing in this way to be associated with the ideas of his students’ generation and further develop a better rapport with each of them. He appealed to the principal, who stated that his informal attire was appropriate for filmmaking class but not for teaching English. Brimley appealed then to the superintendent and the board again with no success, at which point he attempted to grieve the decision. The formal arbitration decided that the dispute was not arbitrable, and thus Brimley filed the lawsuit. Mr. Brimley exhausted all the options that he had through the school district, and sought to get judgment through the 2^nd Circuit Appeals Court. Besides the initial reprimand no other disciplinary action against Mr. Brimley was taken by the school board, superintendent or principal.

Issue:

Is the school district violating a teacher’s 1^st amendment and 14^th amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression, by not allowing them to express themselves freely in regards to attire?

Holding:

The judgment of the district court was affirmed by the Appeals court. Chief Judge Clarie granted summary judgment for the defendants, East Hartford School Board. A divided panel of the Appeals Court reversed and remanded for trial. At the request of a member of the Court, a poll of the judges in regular active service was taken to determine if the case should be reheard en banc. “En Banc” is referring to a need to hear the case before a panel of judges greater than three. A majority voted for rehearing. We now vacate the judgment of the panel majority and affirm the judgment of the district court.

Rationale:

“ We emphatically reject the notion urged by appellant that the First and Fourteenth Amendments afford the same kind of freedom to those who would communicate ideas by conduct such as patrolling, marching, and picketing on streets and highways, as these amendments afford to those who communicate ideas by pure speech” - Supreme Court, Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co

The court stated that at the outset, Mr. Brimley had other, more effective means of communicating his social views to his students. He could have shared his views in vocally without interfering with his teaching duties, and which point the court would be confronted with a very different First Amendment case.

Balanced against his claim of free expression is the school board's interest in promoting respect for authority and traditional values, as well as discipline in the classroom, by requiring teachers to dress in a professional manner. A dress code is a rational means of promoting these goals. Because the Mr. Brimley’s clash with his employer has failed to "directly and sharply implicate basic constitutional values," we refuse to upset the policies established by the school board. This balancing test is primarily a matter for the school board. Were we local officials, and not appellate judges, we might find Mr. Brimley's arguments persuasive. However, our role is not to choose the better educational policy. We may intervene in the decisions of school authorities only when it has been shown that they have strayed outside the area committed to their discretion. If Mr. Brimley's argument were to prevail, this policy would be completely eroded. Because teaching is by definition an expressive activity, virtually every decision made by school authorities would raise First Amendment issues calling for federal court intervention. Cases such as Miller v. School District, Tardiff vs Quinn, and Kelley v. Johnson were taken into account when deciding this case.