Axson-Flynn v. Johnson
2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 1619, 2004 WL 198304, 356 F.3d 1277 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public university's regulation of student speech within its curriculum is permissible under the First Amendment if it is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns, but this deference is overcome if the stated pedagogical justification is a pretext for religious discrimination.
Facts:
- Christina Axson-Flynn, a member of the Mormon church, auditioned for the University of Utah’s Actor Training Program (ATP).
- During her audition, she informed the faculty (Defendants) that her religious beliefs prohibited her from taking God's name in vain or using certain expletives, specifically the word 'fuck.'
- Despite being aware of her religious objections, the ATP admitted Axson-Flynn into the program.
- In a first-semester acting class, an instructor required Axson-Flynn to perform a scene that included language she had previously identified as religiously offensive.
- After Axson-Flynn initially refused, her instructors relented for one assignment but later confronted her at her semester review.
- During the review, the faculty told her that her refusal to use the language was 'unacceptable behavior' and that she had to 'modify [her] values' or leave the program.
- Faculty continued to pressure her, and the ATP director confirmed that she would have to find another program if she did not change her position on using the language.
- Believing she would eventually be forced out, Axson-Flynn withdrew from the ATP and the University of Utah.
Procedural Posture:
- Christina Axson-Flynn filed suit against faculty members of the University of Utah’s Actor Training Program in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.
- The suit, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged violations of her First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting both that their actions were constitutional and that they were protected by qualified immunity.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no constitutional violation and ruling that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Axson-Flynn, as Plaintiff-Appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public university's curricular requirement that a student in an actor training program say words that she finds offensive on religious grounds violate the student's First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion when the university asserts the requirement is based on legitimate pedagogical concerns?
Opinions:
Majority - Ebel, Circuit Judge.
Yes, potentially. A public university's curricular requirement may violate a student's First Amendment rights if the asserted pedagogical justification is merely a pretext for religious discrimination, and here there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether such a pretext existed. For the free speech claim, the court extended the standard from Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which permits regulation of school-sponsored speech if it is 'reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns,' to the university curriculum context. While the university’s stated goals—teaching actors to inhabit different characters and to preserve an author's script—are legitimate pedagogical concerns, Axson-Flynn presented sufficient evidence that these reasons may have been a pretext for religious discrimination. This evidence included faculty telling her to talk to 'good Mormon girls' who did not object to the language and that she could 'still be a good Mormon' and say the words. For the free exercise claim, the court found a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the script-adherence rule was a 'neutral rule of general applicability' under Employment Division v. Smith. If the rule was applied pretextually due to religious animus, it is not neutral and must survive strict scrutiny. Additionally, the court found a triable issue on whether the ATP had a 'system of individualized exemptions,' as it had granted an exemption to a Jewish student for Yom Kippur and had temporarily done so for Axson-Flynn herself. If such a system exists, the state may not deny an exemption for religious hardship without a compelling reason.
Analysis:
This case is significant for extending the Hazelwood 'legitimate pedagogical concerns' standard from the secondary school context to curricular speech at the university level. It clarifies that while universities retain substantial control over their curriculum, this authority is not absolute and cannot be used as a shield for unconstitutional discrimination. The decision establishes that a student may defeat a university's pedagogical justification by presenting evidence that it is merely a pretext for animus, particularly religious discrimination. Furthermore, the ruling reinforces that a pattern of ad hoc, informal exceptions to a general rule can constitute a 'system of individualized exemptions,' triggering strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause for denials of religious accommodation.
Unlock the full brief for Axson-Flynn v. Johnson