# Columbus Education Ass'n v. Columbus City School District

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · June 30, 1980 · 623 F.2d 1155

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8911642

## Case

- **Full name:** COLUMBUS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, on behalf of itself and its members and Andrew B. Meilton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COLUMBUS CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT: Virginia E. Printice, President of the Board of Education Dr. David D. Hamlar, Margie Castleman, Paul R. Langdon, Thomas J. Moyer, Marilyn Redden and Dr. Watson H. Walker, Members of the Board of Education John E. Ellis, Superintendent and C. E. Pollock, Principal, on behalf of himself and all other principals employed by the Columbus City School District individually and in their official capacities
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 30, 1980
- **Citations:** 623 F.2d 1155; 105 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2016
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Merritt
- **Judges:** Jones, Merritt
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8911642

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a reprimand letter sent in response to a teacher’s union representation of a fellow employee’s grievance infringed on the teacher’s right of free association
- holding that a teacher’s “zealous advocacy as a designated union spokesperson of a fellow teacher’s complaint” was a matter of public concern

## Opinion text

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with the District Judge that the principal’s letter to the teacher was nothing *1161 more than an expression of opinion that the teacher’s conduct toward the principal was rude and therefore “unprofessional.” In my view the principal has as much right as the teacher under the First Amendment to object to the other’s conduct. The record does not indicate that the teacher suffered any adverse consequences whatever from the principal’s letter or its retention in the teacher’s file. The principal did not exclude the teacher’s speech from the school. He did not silence the teacher. He simply objected to it and added his own critical voice to the exchange. See Tribe, American Constitutional Law §§ 12-4, 12-21 (1978).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8911642. Public record. Not legal advice.