Sandy, the Tenth Circuit opinion does
not suggest that your hypo would state a claim -- to the
contrary. The court's opinion explains in great detail why a school has
the authority to require students to fullfill curricular requirements, and why
that does not make out a "compelled speech" or free exercise violation.
The only reason the court of appeals reversed the summary judgment on the free
speech claim was because there was a smidgen of evidence in the record that
defendants' reason for requiring strict "script adherence" was hostility to
plaintiff's Mormonism, rather than a genuine, consistently applied pedagogical
rule. Similarly, the court allows the free exercise claim to go forward
for trial because there is some evidence that defendants selectively singled out
the plaintiff for more stringent treatment, and that the defendants had a policy
of "individualized exemptions" that they applied to permit other students to
"opt out" of certain curricular assignments, but which they refused to apply to
permit the plaintiff to "opt out."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Levinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 4:49
PM
Subject: Re: Re: Axson-Flynn
sandy
-----Original Message-----
From: David Cruz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:13:53 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
Subject: Re: Axson-Flynn
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Rick Duncan wrote:
> The 10th Circuit finally came down in Axson-Flynn (the
> case involving the LDS drama student who refused to
> say the "F" word or to curse in God's name as part of
> class exercises at the U of Utah). The Court ruled in
> her favor and reversed and remanded.
> [snip]
> The court held that since the drama faculty had
> exempted a Jewish student from a required
> improvisational exercise on Yom Kippur but refused to
> grant Ms. Axson-Flynn an exemption from saying the
> forbidden words when performing required exercises,
> there was at least a genuine issue of material fact as
> to whether the University maintained an individualized
> exemption process which would trigger strict scrutiny
> under Smith-Lukumi-Sherbert. It seems right to me.
> [snip]
Thanks to Rick for bringing this to our attention. I think that as long
as "individualized exemptions" remain a legally viable distinction from
Smith, the disputed issue here does seem genuine and material.
David B. Cruz
Professor of Law
University of Southern California Law School
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071
U.S.A.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw