Julea Ward v. Vernon Polite, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1479

Ward, a graduate student in Eastern Michigan University's counseling program, objected to affirming same-sex relationships on religious grounds but continued in the program with a high GPA until practicum.
During practicum, Ward sought to refer a gay client or limit her involvement if relationship issues were raised, which faculty referred from the outset.
Formal review found Ward violated ACA ethics and expelled her; Ward challenged the expulsion under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations.
District court granted summary judgment for university, holding policy was neutral and generally applicable and not pretextual.
The issue on appeal is whether Ward’s speech and religious exercise claims were properly treated as triable questions of fact, not law, given alleged pretext and policy ambiguity.
This court reverses the grant of summary judgment, remanding for further proceedings to evaluate pretext, policy applicability, and whether speech and religious exercise rights were violated.]

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ward’s free-speech claim survives summary judgment.	Ward argues the policy was applied selectively and pretextually to punish her religious speech.	University asserts neutral, generally applicable curriculum enforcement and that Ward’s conduct breached ethics.	Triable issues exist; not resolved as a matter of law.
Whether Ward’s free-exercise claim survives summary judgment.	Ward contends implementation of anti-discrimination policy targeted her religious beliefs.	Policy facially neutral and generally applicable; exemptions unclear.	Triable issues exist; not resolved as a matter of law.
Whether the no-referral policy was vague/unsupported and applied discriminatorily.	No written policy barred referrals; evidence suggests policy was ad hoc and religion-driven.	School had reasonable curricular objectives; policy could be enforced.	Jury could find pretextual enforcement; remand necessary.

Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) (school curricular speech permitted with legitimate pedagogical concerns)
Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (students’ speech protected absent substantial disruption)
Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (compelled speech; protection extends to expression in school setting)
Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (strict scrutiny for neutral laws that target religion; need of general applicability)
Christian Legal Soc’y v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (2010) (university all-comers policy upheld; focus on viewpoint-neutral enforcement)
Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, 356 F.3d 1277 (2004) (religious speech in university setting protected; discrimination issue raised)
Settle v. Dickson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 53 F.3d 152 (1995) (teacher-student speech; curriculum use cannot be pretext for religious discrimination)
Kissinger v. Bd. of Trustees of Ohio State Univ., 5 F.3d 177 (1993) (neutral, generally applicable policy; contrasts with ad hoc exemptions)
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (religious-freedom interests weighed against federal interests)
Employment Div., Dept. of Human Res. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral laws of general applicability do not require exemptions absent compelling interest)