COVID-19   Law    Advocacy    Topics A-Z     Training    Wrights' Blog   Wrightslaw Store    Yellow Pages for Kids 

  Home > Articles > Analysis of Fales v. Garst Decision by Court of Appeals of Eighth Circuit

The Special Ed Advocate newsletter
It's Unique ... and Free!

Enter your email address below:

Training Programs

Mar. 20-21 CA - Private

Apr. 11 - Denver, CO

June 5-8 - San Antonio, TX

Sept. 24 - MD via ZOOM

Full Schedule


Topics from A-Z
Free Newsletter
Seminars & Training
Yellow Pages for Kids
Press Room

Books & Training

Wrightslaw Storesecure store lock
  Advocate's Store
  Student Bookstore
  Exam Copies
Training Center
Mail & Fax Orders

Advocacy Library

Cool Tools
Doing Your Homework
Ask the Advocate
Newsletter Archives
Short Course Series
Success Stories

Law Library

Fed Court Complaints
IDEA 2004
McKinney-Vento Homeless
Section 504


American Indian
Assistive Technology
Autism Spectrum
Behavior & Discipline
College/Continuing Ed
Due Process
Early Intervention
  (Part C)

Episodic, such as
   Allergies, Asthma,
   Diabetes, Epilepsy, etc

Future Planning
High-Stakes Tests
Homeless Children
IDEA 2004
Identification & Child Find
Juvenile Justice
Law School & Clinics
Letters & Paper Trails
LRE / Inclusion
Military / DOD
Parental Protections
PE and Adapted PE
Privacy & Records
Procedural Safeguards
Progress Monitoring
Related Services
Research Based

Response to Intervention

Restraints / Seclusion
   and Abuse

School Report Cards
Section 504
Teachers & Principals
Twice Exceptional (2e)
VA Special Education

Resources & Directories

Advocate's Bookstore
Advocacy Resources
  Disability Groups
  State DOEs
  State PTIs
Free Flyers
Free Pubs
Free Newsletters
Legal & Advocacy
   Legal Terms
   Assessment Terms
Best School Websites


Analysis of Fales v. Garst by Pete Wright
by Pete Wright, Esq.

Print this page

On January 2, 2001, in a decision styled as Fales v. Garst, No. 99-2272 (8th Cir. 01/02/2001), the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed a lawsuit filed by three special education teachers against the principal of their school.  The Court reported, “tension arose between Garst (principal) and the three teachers over the needs of special education students.” The teachers complained “about Garst’s administrative decisions and actions to his superiors and others, including the media.”

Teachers File Suit Against Principal

On July 31, 1998, the three teachers filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. In their Complaint, the teachers alleged “that Garst had violated their rights to freedom of speech and association under the First Amendment by instructing them not to discuss incidents regarding special education students at West Fork and their rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment by lowering their evaluations.”

Counsel for Principal Garst filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with the District Court. Essentially, he asserted that even if the facts alleged by the teachers were true, as a matter of law the teachers did not have legal grounds for a case against the principal, in part because Garst had a qualified immunity.  The District Court did not agree with Garst and denied this Motion for Summary Judgment. The case was allowed to proceed to trial. 

Principal Appeals to Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Before the trial, Garst filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The U. S. Court of Appeals issued a decision that reversed the District Court.

In law, resolution of a legal issue is often based on the balancing of competing, conflicting interests. One tipping of the scales may support your perception of the facts, but the see-saw / tilt / or spin of the case may be viewed differently by another person.

The Eighth Circuit wrote that the nature of the teacher’s “freedom of speech” is related in part to whether the speech was about something of “only personal interest” or “on a matter of public concern.”

The court believed that speech “which centered around the proper care and education of special education students, touched upon matters of public concern.” Thus, the teachers’ speech would seem to be “constitutionally protected expression.” However, the Court noted that, “the court balances the teacher’s interest in speaking against her employer’s interest in promoting the efficiency of the public service it performs through its employees.

Balancing Test: Teachers' Free Speech v. Employers Interest in Efficiency

In this case, the balancing test was the teachers’ free speech interest versus the employer’s interest in efficiency. 

Query: What happened to an analysis or balancing of the interests of the students? 

The Court held that the plaintiffs’ speech “resulted in school factions and disharmony among their co-workers and negatively impacted Garst’s interest in efficiently administering the middle school.”

In closing, the court wrote, “here it is beyond peradventure that the plaintiffs’ speech caused the school upheaval. Because we believe that the teachers’ interest in speaking on these matters was outweighed by the interest of efficient administration of the middle school, we conclude the district court erred in not finding Garst was entitled to qualified immunity.”

None of the cases cited by the Court of Appeals involved special education teachers who spoke out against school administrators. Two of the cases cited, Bowman and Belk, make interesting reading, and may be used to develop litigation road maps in the future.  Eighteen years ago, in Bowman, gym teachers who used excessive corporal punishment received a favorable ruling from the Court of Appeals in litigation against a school district.  In last year’s Belk ruling, a city administrator received a favorable ruling from the Court. These cases are available from, and several other locations on the Internet. 

The Door of Litigation Opens

The door of litigation between special education teachers and administrators opened wide enough that a Court of Appeals issued a ruling. The initial Judge kept the door open. The Court of Appeals closed the door. Because the door opened, pathways and roadmaps to successful litigation will develop.  Garst will be studied by attorneys who prosecute and defend similar cases in the future. 

And these cases will come.

With this decision in Garst, you are witnessing the emergence of a new era in special education litigation. In law, early litigators and trail-blazers are often vilified and criticized, and they often lose the initial skirmish.  The actions of special education teachers Jacquelyn Fales, Mary Ann Kahmann, and Eileen Scarborough will be remembered and studied by lawyers and their clients for many years.  In time, the rights of students and the teachers who stand up for these students may receive better protection and greater weight in the balancing process.

Read the Complaint in Fales v. Garst.  Download the decision in Fales v. Garst (pdf)

Legal Rights of Teachers and Students

The Law of Schools, Students and Teachers in a NutshellThe Law of Schools, Students and Teachers in a Nutshell by Kern & David Alexander.

Clear, concise, well-written book that will help teachers understand their rights & responsibilities.

"Should be on the desk of every teacher who is concerned about the welfare of children."

More info about Law of Schools, Students and Teachers.

School Law and the Public SchoolsSchool Law and the Public Schools: A Practical Guide for Educational Leaders by Nathan Essex. 

Focuses on legal challenges that schools face; how schools can achieve their mission without "unduly restricting rights and personal freedoms of students and staff."

More info.

May It Please the Court: Courts, Kids, and the ConstitutionMay It Please the Court: Courts, Kids, and the Constitution -Live Recordings & Transcripts of 16 Supreme Court Oral Arguments on the Constitutional Rights of Students and Teachers by Peter Irons.

Hear live oral arguments before the U. S. Supreme Court in cases about students and teachers' constitutional rights. Fascinating - you see how the pendulum swings from one end to the other over time as the High Court tries to balance rights that are in conflict.

Note: Pete used May It Please the Court tapes to prepare for oral argument before the Supreme Court in Florence County Sch. District IV v. Shannon Carter.

Transcript of Oral Argument in Carter


To Top

Revised: 04/23/09
Created: 01/04/01

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon The Special Ed Advocate: It's Free!