The ability to express political ideas and to gather with other citizens and engage in political activity are among the freedoms that American citizens protect most zealously. However, these rights are not boundless, particularly in a public workplace like a school. School boards and district administrators sometimes struggle to balance these basic rights of employees and the need for a calm, safe and respectful workplace. 


Public employees do not forfeit their constitutional protections when they take government jobs. Among the constitutional protections provided are those established under the First Amendment, including freedom of speech. However, freedom of speech by public employees is not absolute. School district employee speech is protected under the First Amendment if both of the following apply: 

  • the employee is speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern and 
  • the employee’s interest in commenting on matters of public concern outweighs the interests of the school district in promoting the efficiency of its operations or services.

In some cases, public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties or in their capacity as a district employee. In these cases, they are not speaking as private citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline. School districts can hold teachers and other employees to certain standards when those employees speak on behalf of the school district.

More often, when public employees engage in political speech, they are speaking as private citizens on matters of public concern. When speaking in this manner, a school employee’s speech will be protected under the First Amendment unless the district can demonstrate that the employee’s speech negatively interferes with the employer’s operations or service. In evaluating the degree with which an employee’s speech interferes with the employer’s operations or service, courts typically evaluate whether the speech: 

  • Interfered with the employee’s performance; 
  • Created disharmony among the employee’s co-workers; 
  • Undercut an immediate supervisor’s authority over the employee; and
  • Would destroy the relationship of loyalty and trust required of the employee.

Determining whether the employee’s interest in commenting on matters of public concern outweighs the interests of the school district in promoting the efficiency of its operations or services is a fact-specific analysis. Boards of education should work closely with their board counsel to review the details of each case prior to disciplining any employee.

For additional information about a school board’s ability to regulate the political speech of its employees, please see the following resources: 

In the aftermath of certain political events, districts leaders may be tasked with the responsibility of separating constitutionally-protected speech from illegal activity and behavior that is inconsistent with district policies or applicable codes of conduct. All staff members have the responsibility to abide by the laws of the state of Ohio, any applicable negotiated agreement, the policies of the board and the administrative regulations designed to implement them. Educators are also required to comply with the Licensure Code of Professional Conduct of Ohio Educators. 

Reports of wrongdoing may come in from a variety of sources including students, parents, employees, board members, law enforcement officials, or the media. The source of the report and the nature of the accusations will affect the process and extent of any investigation or discipline. For example, the State Board of Education is required to revoke a teacher’s existing license for any person who has been convicted of, found guilty of or pled guilty to a number of specified crimes. Board action is required for substantially similar crimes that have been committed in jurisdictions outside Ohio. License revocation is mandatory, does not require investigation and is effective immediately at the date and time the State Board issues the written order. 

In other cases, the employee’s conduct may not result in a criminal conviction, but may violate applicable codes of conduct set forth in board policy or the district’s collective bargaining agreement. In these situations, districts should work with its board counsel to review the misconduct and any applicable policy language that governs investigating or disciplining employees for potential misconduct.

For additional information about a school board’s ability to discipline employees for potential  misconduct, please see the following resources: 

In evaluating the potential misconduct of school board members, school districts should keep in mind that school board members are not employees of the school district and may not be unilaterally removed or disciplined by the district. Under Ohio law, a member of a board of education may be removed from office only for gross neglect of duty, gross immorality, drunkenness, or other flagrant misconduct in office. 

The legal process in place for removing a board member includes the filing of a petition with the court of common pleas, a hearing on the evidence for removal, and a formal decision by either a judge or a jury. Finally, if a school board member has been convicted of a felony, the board member is automatically disqualified from further service under another general statute, and the legal process for removal is not required.

School boards in Ohio do not have the authority, by vote or other means, to remove one of their fellow board members from the board. Some boards have addressed a member’s misconduct by issuing a formal board resolution of censure or disapproval. These measures, however, are not specifically addressed in the Ohio Revised Code and do not have any direct effect on the censured board member’s legal status or authority.

If you have general questions about the information on this webpage, please reach out to OSBA’s Division of Legal Services at (855) OSBA-LAW. You can find information on how to talk to students about controversial issues here.

Print this Page