Andrew Policastro v. Theodora Kontogiannis, et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit/Amicus
Jeanne LoCicero/ACLU-NJ
The ACLU-NJ filed an amicus brief in a pro se appeal to the Third Circuit regarding the right of teachers to distribute materials in teacher mailboxes. In this matter, a memo from nine teachers regarding contract negotiation issues was twice removed from the mailboxes by the principal, although the union regularly used the mailboxes to disseminate information on the contract negotiations. The trial judge found that the memos created a "disruption" (and therefore were justifiably removed) because some teachers who read the memo went into the hallways or library to discuss the issue instead of taking care of their classes.
The memo had no effect on the activities of students, just the teachers. Our brief addressed (1) the "disruption" standard generally; (2) the impermissibility of a "Heckler's Veto"; and (3) the existence of content-based discrimination (as the issue was deemed acceptable to be discussed, it was merely the viewpoint that was deemed disruptive). Also, we argued, when dealing with teacher responses as opposed to student responses, teachers are expected to act reasonably and do their jobs; their failure to do so (based on a person expressing his point of view on a legitimate subject) should result in reprimand as opposed to denial of rights of the speaker. Indeed, the fact that the administration cannot control its staff over basic matters such as reading opposing views on a teachers' contract (written in matter-of-fact, non-inflammatory language) should not result in a denial of free speech.
Andrew Policastro v. Theodora Kontogiannis, et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit/Amicus
Jeanne LoCicero/ACLU-NJ
The ACLU-NJ filed an amicus brief in a pro se appeal to the Third Circuit regarding the right of teachers to distribute materials in teacher mailboxes. In this matter, a memo from nine teachers regarding contract negotiation issues was twice removed from the mailboxes by the principal, although the union regularly used the mailboxes to disseminate information on the contract negotiations. The trial judge found that the memos created a "disruption" (and therefore were justifiably removed) because some teachers who read the memo went into the hallways or library to discuss the issue instead of taking care of their classes.
The memo had no effect on the activities of students, just the teachers. Our brief addressed (1) the "disruption" standard generally; (2) the impermissibility of a "Heckler's Veto"; and (3) the existence of content-based discrimination (as the issue was deemed acceptable to be discussed, it was merely the viewpoint that was deemed disruptive). Also, we argued, when dealing with teacher responses as opposed to student responses, teachers are expected to act reasonably and do their jobs; their failure to do so (based on a person expressing his point of view on a legitimate subject) should result in reprimand as opposed to denial of rights of the speaker. Indeed, the fact that the administration cannot control its staff over basic matters such as reading opposing views on a teachers' contract (written in matter-of-fact, non-inflammatory language) should not result in a denial of free speech.
