What happened to an analysis or balancing of the interests of the students?
The Court held that the plaintiffs’ speech “resulted in school factions and disharmony among their co-workers and negatively impacted Garst’s interest in efficiently administering the middle school.” In closing, the court wrote, “here it is beyond peradventure that the plaintiffs’ speech caused the school upheaval. Because we believe that the teachers’ interest in speaking on these matters was outweighed by the interest of efficient administration of the middle school, we conclude the district court erred in not finding Garst was entitled to qualified immunity.” None of the cases cited by the Court of Appeals involved special education teachers who spoke out against school administrators. Two of the cases cited, Bowman and Belk, make interesting reading, and may be used to develop litigation road maps in the future. Eighteen years ago, in Bowman, gym teachers who used excessive corporal punishment received a favorable ruling from the Court of Appeals in litigation against a school dist
