# Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District

> Supreme Court of the United States · January 9, 1979 · 439 U.S. 410

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427411

## Case

- **Full name:** GIVHAN v. WESTERN LINE CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** January 9, 1979
- **Citations:** 439 U.S. 410; 18 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 8750; 18 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1424; 99 S. Ct. 693; 58 L. Ed. 2d 619; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 209
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stevens
- **Judges:** Rehnquist, SteveNS, Stevens
- **Cited by:** 904 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/9427411

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding, in a case where the plaintiff privately complained to her employer of racial discrimination in the workplace, that “[njeither the [First] Amendment itself nor our decisions indicate that th[e] freedom [of speech] is lost to the public employee who arranges to communic…
- finding that a teacher’s communication with her principal about the school's alleged racially discriminatory practices was constitutionally protected and emphasizing “that a public employee [does not forfeit] his protection against governmental abridgement of freedom of speech…
- holding that the First Amendment protected a teacher’s complaints “involv[ing] employment policies and practices at the school which [Plaintiff] conceived to be racially discriminatory” even when those complaints were “privately expressed . . . to the principal”
- holding that the “claimant must show that ‘but for’ the protected expression the employer would not have taken the alleged retaliatory action.”
- finding that a viable First Amendment claim may have been alleged in a case in which the plaintiffs complaints “involved employment policies and practices ... which she conceived to be racially discriminatory in purpose or effect.”

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Stevens,
concurring.
Because this Court’s opinion in Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274 , had not been announced when the District Court decided this case, it did not expressly find that respondents would have rehired petitioner if she had not engaged in constitutionally protected conduct. The District Court did find, however, that petitioner’s protected conduct was the “primary” reason for respondents’ decision. * The *418 Court of Appeals regarded that finding as foreclosing respondents’ Mt. Healthy claim. In essence, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court would have made an appropriate finding on the issue if it had had access to our Mt. Healthy opinion.
My understanding of the District Court’s finding is the same as the Court of Appeals’. Nevertheless, I agree that the District Court should have the. opportunity to decide whether there is any need for further proceedings on the issue. If that court regards the present record as adequate to enable it to supplement its original findings without taking additional evidence, it is free to do so. On that understanding, I join the Court’s opinion.
App. to Pet. for Cert. 35a. See also id., at 36a, where the District Court stated that petitioner’s protected activity was “almost entirely” responsible for her termination.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427411. Public record. Not legal advice.