## Facts

- Shelley Evans-Marshall was a public high school English teacher in Ohio employed on a one-year limited contract.
- During the 2001–2002 school year, she assigned *Fahrenheit 451* and ran a censorship-related project using a list of frequently challenged books; a student group selected *Heather Has Two Mommies*, prompting a parental complaint.
- The principal directed her to have students select a different book for the project; she complied but used the incident as part of the class discussion about censorship.
- She also assigned *Siddhartha* and led class discussions touching on spirituality and personal growth.
- Parents publicly criticized the appropriateness and educational value of the materials and teaching methods at heavily attended school board meetings, and some parents submitted additional complaints and a petition opposing her teaching approach.
- The principal recommended nonrenewal; the board voted not to renew, allowing her contract to expire.
- Evans-Marshall sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the nonrenewal was retaliation for protected First Amendment activity in selecting books and teaching methods.
- After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants based on the rule that employee speech made pursuant to official duties is not constitutionally protected.

## Issues

1. Whether a public high school teacher’s in-class selection of books and instructional methods constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment.
2. Whether a school district violates the First Amendment by nonrenewing a teacher’s contract allegedly because of those in-class curricular choices.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the school board and administrators.
- The court held the teacher’s in-class curricular speech was made pursuant to her official duties and therefore was not protected speech for First Amendment retaliation purposes.
- Because the speech was unprotected at the threshold, the court did not reach the public-concern inquiry, Pickering balancing, or causation.

## Legal Principles

- Under *Garcetti v. Ceballos*, public employees do not speak as citizens for First Amendment purposes when they make statements pursuant to their official duties; such speech is outside First Amendment protection in a retaliation claim.
- A K–12 teacher’s in-class curricular choices and instructional communications are ordinarily part of the teacher’s assigned job responsibilities and fall within the school employer’s managerial control.
- In primary and secondary education, any “academic freedom” interest in determining curriculum is institutionally held by the school district and its elected governing board, not individually held by classroom teachers as a constitutional entitlement.
- School boards retain final authority over classroom content and may direct or restrict curriculum consistent with their responsibility to parents and the public.

## Conclusion

The court held that a public high school teacher has no First Amendment right to override school officials’ curricular decisions through in-class book selection and teaching methods; because the challenged speech was made pursuant to the teacher’s job duties, the nonrenewal decision could not support a § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim.


Evans-Marshall v. Bd. of Educ. of Tipp City Exempted Vill. Sch. Dist., 624 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2010)