Julea Ward v. Vernon Polite

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
667 F.3d 727, 2012 WL 251939, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1479 (2012)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A public university may not enforce its academic policies in a selective or pretextual manner to punish a student for her religious speech or beliefs, even though the university generally has broad discretion to regulate student speech that is part of the curriculum.

Facts:

Julea Ward was a graduate student in Eastern Michigan University's counseling program with a 3.91 GPA.
Ward, a Christian, frequently expressed to her professors that her faith prevented her from affirming a client’s same-sex relationships or other conduct she considered immoral, such as extra-marital affairs.
The university's program required students to follow the American Counseling Association (ACA) code of ethics, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.
During her required clinical practicum, Ward was assigned a client who sought counseling regarding a same-sex relationship.
Ward asked her faculty supervisor, Professor Callaway, for permission to refer the client to another counselor due to the conflict with her religious beliefs about affirming the relationship.
Professor Callaway reassigned the client but then initiated an informal review of Ward's request.
Following the informal review, the university convened a formal review committee, which questioned Ward about her religious beliefs.
The committee voted unanimously to expel Ward from the counseling program for being "unwilling to change [her] behavior."

Procedural Posture:

Julea Ward filed a § 1983 action in the U.S. District Court against university faculty and administrators in their individual and official capacities, alleging violations of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The district court dismissed the official-capacity claims against the university's President and Board of Regents.
After discovery, both Ward and the university defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the university defendants, holding they had permissibly enforced a neutral and generally applicable curricular requirement.
Ward appealed the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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 violate a student's First Amendment free speech and free exercise rights by expelling her from a graduate counseling program for requesting to refer a client due to a conflict with her religious beliefs, where evidence suggests the university's purported no-referral policy was not consistently applied and may have been a pretext for religious discrimination?

Opinions:

Majority - Sutton, Circuit Judge

Yes. A public university violates a student's First Amendment rights if it expels her using a curricular requirement as a pretext for punishing her religious beliefs. Although universities have broad authority over their curriculum under the standard from Hazelwood, they may not use this authority as a pretext for religious discrimination. A reasonable jury could find the university’s justification for expelling Ward—that she violated a no-referral policy—was pretextual because the university could not produce any written no-referral policy. Furthermore, the ACA code of ethics, which the university claimed to enforce, expressly permits values-based referrals. The university also permitted referrals or non-assignments for secular reasons, suggesting a double standard. The faculty's questioning during the formal hearing, which focused on Ward's theology and faith, provides further evidence that the expulsion was motivated by hostility toward her religious speech and beliefs, not by a neutral application of a legitimate pedagogical rule.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies that while the deferential Hazelwood standard for regulating student speech applies in the university setting, it does not provide cover for pretextual religious discrimination. The ruling empowers students to challenge disciplinary actions by presenting evidence that a seemingly neutral academic policy was applied selectively to punish their religious viewpoints. It establishes that universities must enforce their policies consistently and cannot invent or rely on unwritten rules to penalize students for expressing religious convictions. This case serves as a key precedent for balancing a public university's academic freedom with a student's First Amendment rights, particularly in professional programs with ethical codes.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Julea Ward v. Vernon Polite (2012)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature