The teacher, who has been working part-time since 2006, has breached his duty of loyalty to the principle set out in the 2020 warning for the strict separation of private views and professional functions. This is evident from the decision of the administrative court published on Wednesday.
This behavioral disorder originated during probation. So there is a factual reason for dismissal according to the cantonal law on the employment of teachers (GAL).
Teacher allegedly participated in an illegal demonstration
The cantonal education department supported the dismissal of the teacher, who achieved a certain notoriety in Aargau as a corona critic. Among other things, he acted as a speaker in February 2021 in Wohlen at the demonstration against the Corona measures.
The cancellation was disproportionate, the lecturer argued in his complaint to the administrative court. All alleged statements and activities fell within the scope of freedom of expression. He also appeared at the demonstration in Wohlen mainly as a private citizen.
The school had already warned the teacher in September 2020 about unprofessional behavior. It was said that he did not make a strict distinction between his private affairs and his professional duties.
In May 2020, he took part in an illegal demonstration with about 300 people. The man had also campaigned for the referendum on the Covid 19 law from his business email address in a mass mailing to all approximately 120 teachers.
Confidence “sensitively threatened”
In its 33-page verdict, the administrative court states that the plaintiff’s behavior shows that he “has not done justice to his role model function as a teacher”. The behavior was easily apt to publicly damage the reputation and credibility of his employer and the school as a cantonal institution.
In doing so, he also ‘sensibly jeopardized’ the confidence of the pupils and their parents in the proper performance of their professional duties. It must therefore be seriously doubted whether the school was credibly able to implement the protective measures in place.
As a teacher, he showed his intransigence in public and encouraged people to ignore the measures imposed by the authorities. The teacher was aware of the threat of dismissal and explained this in his speech at the meeting in Wohlen.
Reminds of loyalty
According to the administrative court, the plaintiff did not shy away from using insults to belittle a sitting member of the Federal Council in his speech archived on YouTube. He called federal councilor Alain Berset “sick”.
He also made a poor choice of words and portrayed those who violated Covid 19 regulations as role models. However, as a teacher employed by a cantonal school, the plaintiff can and should be expected to project an exemplary image.
The Administrative Court recalls that the Federal Constitution gives everyone the right to freely form their opinion and to express and disseminate it without hindrance. The duty of loyalty towards civil servants can restrict freedom of expression.
Duty of loyalty means that the public-law employee represents the interests of the community in the performance of his duties outside the actual work, as explained by the administrative court. The purpose of the duty of loyalty is to ensure the proper functioning of public administration by not undermining public confidence in the state.
Restrictions on freedom of expression based on the duty of loyalty are permitted only if they are objectively justified and are reasonably proportionate to their purpose. According to the Federal Supreme Court, public criticism is not excluded in principle, but the employee’s duty of loyalty requires a certain restraint, especially when it comes to criticism. (SDA)