Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, July 20, 1995 TAG: 9507200069
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JAN VERTEFEUILLE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
It still will be up to a jury to decide whether the Franklin County School Board violated math teacher Lari Scruggs' First Amendment rights.
Race relations and interracial dating were hot topics at Franklin County High School during the 1992-93 school year, and Scruggs' discussion with two white students about dating blacks was within the realm of public concern, U.S. District Judge Jackson Kiser wrote in an opinion filed Wednesday.
Scruggs is suing the Franklin County School Board, two administrators, the head of the local NAACP and a teacher because she was forced to resign after making controversial statements to the students. She is seeking $2 million and reinstatement to her job.
The incident occurred in February 1993, when two students approached Scruggs while she was monitoring study hall and asked her about an upcoming Black History Month program and what she thought about whites dating blacks.
Another teacher complained to the principal that Scruggs, who is white, referred to it as a "nigger" program and lectured the two white students against interracial dating.
The two girls and Scruggs gave statements to the principal about the incident. The principal then suspended Scruggs for three days with pay. The county school superintendent later told her he would recommend the School Board not rehire her. Scruggs resigned at the end of the school year.
Scruggs charged that the School Board and administrators deprived her of due process and First Amendment rights. At a hearing in federal court last month, the School Board sought to have the lawsuit thrown out.
Kiser decided the due process component of the case in favor of the School Board, saying it followed all required disciplinary procedures, but he said the First Amendment question should be heard by a jury since the facts are in dispute.
He also dismissed Superintendent Leonard Gereau and Principal William Gibson as individuals from the suit, saying they are shielded from such lawsuits when acting in their official capacities.
Scruggs denied "using the n-word," her attorney said, and only one of the students reported that she said it. Both remembered her saying that dating blacks was a personal choice, but that she believed it caused a lot of problems at the high school.
The students also claimed that Scruggs said dating black boys lowered white girls' status, which Scruggs initially agreed her statement could have been interpreted as meaning.
Whether the school administrators' investigation of the conversation was sufficient before they punished Scruggs is also a matter for a jury to decide, the judge wrote.
The school board's attorney argued at last month's hearing that when people are speaking in their role as teachers, it "gives the School Board an interest in what they say" and their speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
The judge disagreed.
"I do not believe that a public school teacher, when asked by a student for guidance or comment on important social issues of the day, must stand mute," Kiser wrote. "Rather, she may offer her views and encourage discussion of different views."
Principal Gibson said he believed Scruggs' speech to be "potentially disruptive" at the school. Potential disruptiveness, by law, can outweigh an employee's right to speak, even on matters of public concern.
But Kiser held that the Supreme Court requires that "the closer the employee's speech reflects on matters of public concern, the greater must be the employer's showing that speech is likely to be disruptive."
And, in Scruggs' case, an argument could be made that she was fired not for the potentially disruptive effects of her speech, but for the potential disruption - by way of public criticism - that could have resulted from her not being fired, Kiser said. The incident generated much media attention and heightened racial tensions in the school.
by CNB