Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 9, 1979, ruled (9–0) that, under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, public employees are permitted within specific boundaries to express their opinions, whether positive or negative, in private with their employer without fear of reprisal.

The case involved Bessie Givhan, a teacher in Mississippi’s Western Line Consolidated School District. During the 1970–71 school year, she had several private conversations with the principal, expressing her belief that the school district’s practices and policies were racially discriminatory. After the school year, her teaching contract was not renewed. Givhan subsequently sued the school board, alleging that officials terminated her employment for exercising her First Amendment rights to free speech. When the case was heard before a federal district court, school officials claimed that Givhan, during her meetings with the principal, was “insulting” and “hostile” and made “petty and unreasonable demands.” That and other evidence was dismissed by the court, which ruled that Givhan’s freedom of speech had been violated, and it ordered her reinstatement. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed in favour of the board. Citing Supreme Court precedent, it held that because the teacher’s expression was private, she was not protected under the First Amendment.

On November 7, 1978, the case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. In its decision, it ruled that public employees who communicate in private rather than in public forums do not automatically lose their First Amendment protections. Instead, the speech must be evaluated as to whether it in any way impedes the proper performance of daily duties or interferes with the regular operations of schools. Citing an earlier case—Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle (1977), which had been decided after the district court’s ruling—the Supreme Court added that if a public worker can demonstrate that his or her “constitutionally protected conduct played a ‘substantial’ role in the employer’s decision” to terminate employment, the employer must show that it would have made the same decision “even in the absence of the protected conduct.” Although the district court held that her protected conduct had been the main reason for Givhan’s dismissal, it had not determined if the school board would have acted in a similar manner regardless of that conduct. The Supreme Court thus vacated the Fifth Circuit’s decision, and the case was remanded.

The district court subsequently ruled that the board’s alleged reasons for discharging Givhan were afterthoughts or pretextual, and she was awarded back pay and attorney’s fees. In addition, she was ordered reinstated. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the ruling.