## Facts

- Margaret Boring was a public high school drama teacher in Buncombe County, North Carolina.
- In connection with her teaching duties, she selected and directed a student play for the school drama program.
- The play addressed mature themes that some parents and community members considered inappropriate for a public-school setting.
- After complaints, school administrators responded by changing Boring’s teaching assignment through an involuntary transfer or reassignment that she viewed as adverse.
- Boring alleged the reassignment retaliated against her for exercising First Amendment rights through her curricular choices.
- She sued the school board and school officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating her First Amendment rights.

## Issues

1. Whether a public school teacher’s selection and production of a play as part of the curriculum constitutes protected First Amendment speech.
2. Whether a school board may control curricular content and reassign a teacher based on dissatisfaction with curricular choices without violating the First Amendment.
3. Whether the public-employee speech framework (public concern and balancing) supports a retaliation claim when the conduct occurs within the teacher’s job duties.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit (en banc) affirmed judgment for the school board and officials.
- The court held that Boring’s selection and direction of the play, undertaken as part of her teaching responsibilities, was not constitutionally protected speech in this context.
- The court concluded that the school board has primary authority over curriculum and may regulate curricular content, including through personnel decisions such as reassignment.
- Accordingly, Boring failed to establish a First Amendment violation under § 1983.

## Legal Principles

- In K–12 public schools, in-class curricular choices made pursuant to a teacher’s job duties are generally treated as the school system’s curricular program rather than the teacher’s private speech.
- Public-employee First Amendment protection is strongest when an employee speaks as a citizen on matters of public concern; speech tied to executing assigned duties receives limited protection.
- Local school boards have broad discretion to set and control curriculum, and teachers do not have a constitutional entitlement to select specific instructional content contrary to board or administrative direction.
- Even if curricular conduct is treated as speech, school interests in controlling curriculum and preventing disruption can outweigh the employee’s asserted First Amendment interest.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a public high school drama teacher’s First Amendment retaliation claim, holding that her curricular selection of a student play was not protected personal speech and that the school board could respond to controversy by controlling curriculum and reassigning her without violating the Constitution.


Boring v. Buncombe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 136 F.3d 364 (4th Cir. 1998)