## Facts

- J.D. Martin was an economics instructor at a public community college in Midland, Texas.
- Administrators received student complaints beginning in 1983 about Martin’s repeated use of profanity in class (e.g., “hell,” “damn,” “bullshit”).
- Martin was warned orally and in writing that continued profanity could result in discipline, including suspension or termination.
- Martin continued using profane and abusive language in class, including a June 19, 1984 incident prompting two written student complaints describing statements such as: the class “sucks,” the attitude is “a bunch of bullshit,” and “if you don’t like the way I teach this God damn course there is the door.”
- The college initiated termination proceedings, and the board of trustees approved Martin’s termination.
- Martin sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of free speech (including academic freedom), equal protection, and due process.

## Issues

1. Whether a public college instructor’s repetitive, abusive classroom profanity, as used here, is protected speech under the First Amendment, including any asserted right of academic freedom.
2. Whether Martin proved an equal protection violation by showing he was treated differently than similarly situated instructors without a rational basis.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for the defendants.
- The court held Martin’s classroom profanity, in context, was not constitutionally protected speech.
- The court rejected Martin’s “academic freedom” theory as a basis for protecting the conduct.
- The court held the equal protection verdict lacked evidentiary support because Martin did not show differential treatment of similarly situated instructors.
- The court noted that First Amendment balancing in the public-employment context is a question of law for the court, permitting JNOV notwithstanding the jury’s answers.

## Legal Principles

- Public-employee First Amendment protection generally requires, as a threshold matter, speech that addresses a matter of public concern; classroom profanity lacking pedagogical relevance and directed abusively at students may fall outside constitutional protection.
- In the classroom context, courts may consider the rights of the student audience and the institution’s interest in maintaining an appropriate educational environment.
- “Academic freedom” does not create an independent constitutional license for a public instructor to use gratuitous, abusive profanity in class contrary to reasonable institutional regulation.
- An equal protection claim in this setting requires evidence that the plaintiff was treated differently from similarly situated employees and that the disparate treatment lacked a rational basis; unsupported assertions of unequal treatment are insufficient.
- Where the evidence cannot support a finding of constitutional protection or an equal protection violation, the court may resolve the issue as a matter of law and enter JNOV.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld the college’s termination decision by ruling that Martin’s repeated, abusive classroom profanity was not protected by the First Amendment or any asserted academic-freedom right, and that Martin failed to present evidence supporting an equal protection claim.


Martin v. Parrish, 805 F.2d 583 (5th Cir. 1986)