• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
FILEDU.S. COURT OF
 
APPEALSELEVENTH CIRCUITDECEMBER 16, 2011JOHN LEYCLERK 
[PUBLISH]IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT________________________ No. 10-13925 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-00099-JRH-WLBJENNIFER KEETON,llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant,versusMARY JANE ANDERSON-WILEY,Associate Professor, Augusta State University,PAULETTE SCHENCK,Assistant Professor,RICHARD DEANER,Assistant Professor,WAYNE LORD,Chairman of Department of Educational Leadership, Counseling andSpecial Education,GORDON EISENMAN,Dean of College of Education, et al.,llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees.
 
 ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of Georgia________________________ (December 16, 2011)Before BARKETT, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.BARKETT, Circuit Judge:Jennifer Keeton was enrolled in the Counselor Education Program atAugusta State University (ASU), a Georgia state school, seeking to obtain her master’s degree in school counseling. After Keeton completed her first year in the program, ASU’s officials asked her to participate in a remediation plan addressingwhat the faculty perceived as deficiencies in her “ability to be a multiculturallycompetent counselor, particularly with regard to working with gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (GLBTQ) populations.” ASU’s
1
The ASU student handbook authorizes ASU officials to place a student on “remediation
1
status” when a “student’s progress is not satisfactory on interpersonal or professional criteriaunrelated to academic performance.” The student then receives a remediation plan “outlining thefaculty’s concerns” and “delineat[ing] what conditions the student must meet to be removed fromremediation status.” A remediation plan is not, however, a disciplinary measure. Instead, as oneASU official described it, a remediation plan is “a plan to deal with the professional part of thecuriculum that goes across the program, goes across classes. It’s a plan that is devised withstudents in order to help students to grow professionally in areas of weakness.”2
 
officials required Keeton’s consent to the remediation plan before Keeton could participate in the program’s clinical practicum, in which she would have tocounsel students one-on-one. Rather than completing the remediation plan,Keeton filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that requiring her to complete the remediation plan violated her First Amendment free speech andfree exercise rights. Along with her verified complaint, Keeton also filed a
2
motion for a preliminary injunction that would prevent ASU’s officials fromdismissing her from the program if she did not complete the remediation plan.After holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied her motion for a preliminary injunction, and it is from this order that Keeton now appeals.
3
I. Standard of Review
A district court may grant a preliminary injunction only when the moving party demonstrates: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) thatirreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction is issued; (3) thethreatened injury to the moving party outweighs whatever damage the proposed
The defendants are ASU officials and members of the Board of Regents of the
2
University System of Georgia.After the district court denied her motion for a preliminary injunction, Keeton was
3
expelled from ASU, as she refused to complete the remediation plan. Now, in appealing thedistrict court’s order denying her motion for a preliminary injunction, she seeks an injunctionrequiring ASU’s officials to reinstate her in the program.3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...