Jennifer Keeton v. Mary Jane Anderson-Wiley
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25077
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Keeton enrolled in Augusta State University's Counselor Education Program and, after year one, faced a remediation plan targeting multicultural competence with GLBTQ populations.
- Remediation required Keeton to consent before proceeding to the clinical practicum, and included workshops, readings, exposure to GLBTQ individuals, ALGBTIC Competencies, and monthly reflective submissions.
- ASU alleged Keeton’s statements demonstrated an intent to impose her personal religious beliefs on clients, potentially violating ACA Code of Ethics; remediation aimed to teach ethical counseling in line with ACA standards.
- Keeton initially agreed to the remediation plan but later withdrew; she filed §1983 claims alleging First Amendment free speech and free exercise violations and sought a preliminary injunction.
- District court denied the injunction; Keeton was expelled after refusing to complete the remediation; the appeal concerns whether the injunction should have been granted.
- The court reviews preliminary injunctions under an abuse-of-discretion standard, with de novo review of questions of law, and considers the school environment’s special characteristics.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Viewpoint discrimination in remediation plan | Keeton alleges plan targets her religious views on homosexuality. | Plan is neutral, aimed at ethical counseling and ADA compliance, not punishing viewpoint. | Remediation plan is viewpoint-neutral and reasonably related to pedagogy. |
| Retaliation for speech | Remediation was in response to protected speech. | Action rooted in noncompliance with ACA ethics, not retaliation. | No causal connection shown; action motivated by ethics compliance, not protected speech. |
| Compelled speech under Barnette | ASU compelled her to state or endorse beliefs contrary to her own. | Not compelling belief but requiring ethical conduct and non-imposition of beliefs. | Barnette inapplicable; no compelled belief, only adherence to ethical standards. |
| Neutrality and general applicability of free exercise claim | Remediation discriminates against religious beliefs. | Curricular requirement is neutral and generally applicable. | Remediation plan neutral and generally applicable; rational basis supports the regulation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (Supreme Court, 1988) (school-sponsored speech may be regulated if pedagogical concerns are legitimate)
- Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (Supreme Court, 1995) (viewpoint discrimination analyzed via forum neutrality)
- Christian Legal Society Chapter of Univ. of Cal., Hastings Coll. of the Law v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (Supreme Court, 2010) (all-comers policy; regulation may be content-neutral yet impact groups)
- Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (Supreme Court, 1991) (government can selectively fund programs promoting preferred activities)