Ricci v. Cleveland Case – Essay Example

The paper "Ricci v. Cleveland Case" is an outstanding example of a law essay.
Debbie Ricci, during a brief lunchtime chat in the cafeteria of a Cleveland ISD school, endorsed a candidate for the school board. She was later fired for engaging in political activities. The school board refused to accept her complains, and this issue turned into a Fist Amendment case.
Did the Kerry Cowart, the superintendent, and the school board violate Ricci’s first amendment rights when she was fired for engaging in political talks?
The trial court ruled that the district’s policy was “overboard”, and the superintendent and the school board violated Ricci’s first amendment rights.

The first amendment of the United States Constitution stipulates that the Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press, or of speech, and the people’s right to peacefully assemble and address their grievances. According to this amendment, people are permitted to express their views about political or any other issue that concerns them. This amendment also bars the government or any other institution from limiting citizen’s or employee’s rights of freedom of speech, and the right to peacefully assemble and express their grievances. Therefore, under the provisions of the first amendment, the school board and the superintendent illegally fired Ricci for engaging in political talks.
The United States Constitution allows school districts and other institutions to adopt narrower policies, which bar employees from assembling and engaging in political talks relating to that institution. However, the law demands that such policies should not come into conflict with the provisions that are under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, such narrower policies should not strip away worker’s right to free speech. I, therefore, feel that the school board and superintendent violated Ricci’s rights to free speech since her political talks did not interfere with her public tasks.
The first amendment of the United States Constitution stipulates the legal provisions for the right to free speech and peaceful assembly. The court ruled in favor of Ricci but declined to charge the school district and superintendent liable for violating her rights to free speech. This is because the court considered the school district’s narrow policy that barred its employees from exerting political pressure on other people. On the other hand, the court also ruled that the school’s narrower policy conflicted with the rights to free speech, thus ruling in favor of Ricci because her political talks did not interfere with her public duties.