COLE, Circuit Judge. Matthew Warman, a former graduate student at Mount St. Joseph University (MSJU), objected to taking the COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds. When MSJU announced that it would require all students and employees to be vaccinated, Warman applied for a religious exemption. Soon after, two officers with the MSJU Police Department (MSJPD) allegedly detained him at the campus police station for an hour, attempting to convince him to get the vaccine and disparaging his religious beliefs. Warman later sued MSJU, MSJPD,
and multiple individual employees. The district court dismissed his complaint. We affirm the district court in part and reverse in part. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Warman’s free exercise, equal protection, and disability discrimination claims with prejudice, and we affirm the dismissal of MSJPD from all counts with prejudice. But because Warman plausibly pleaded that the two officers who detained him violated his Fourth Amendment rights, we reverse the district court’s dismissal of Warman’s wrongful detention claim and reinstate the claim against those defendants. And we vacate the district court’s declination of supplemental jurisdiction over Warman’s state-law claims and remand for reconsideration.…MSJU is a Catholic university in Cincinnati, Ohio. Around December 2020, Matthew Warman enrolled in MSJU’s graduate nursing program. A former Marine, Warman was medically discharged from the military due to internal injuries and brain tumors and suffered from “post-discharge depression and anxiety[.]” (Second Am. Compl., R. 18, PageID 315.) The Veterans Administration paid for Warman’s schooling at MSJU, though this support was potentially subject to repayment if he failed to complete his studies.
MSJU began developing a COVID-19 vaccination policy and, upon commencement of the Fall 2021 term, informed students that it was going to require vaccination. On September 9, 2021, Warman proactively sought a religious exemption. He also submitted a medical exemption letter from his doctor stating that Warman had a “medical need to avoid taking the COVID vaccines.” (Id at PageID 320.) A few days later, MSJU formally released its vaccine policy, which required all current students and employees to be fully vaccinated and to submit proof of vaccination by December 15, 2021, unless they obtained an exemption from the university.
On September 15, 2021, MSJPD’s Chief of Police, Kevin Koo, called Warman to campus “to speak with him about [Warman’s] decision to refuse the vaccine.” (Id. at PageID 321.) After receiving six phone calls and an email, Warman arrived at the campus police station around 1:00 p.m. Koo and MSJPD Captain Norb Koopman “took [Warman] into a back room . . . and would not allow him to leave[.]” (Id.) The officers held Warman there for approximately one hour, telling him that he was required to stay until Karen Elliott, MSJU’s Director of Mission and Ministry, arrived.
During that hour, Koopman and Koo berated Warman. They called Warman a “f*****g idiot” and told him that he should “get a new religion[,]” that his “beliefs were wrong[,]” and that he should “grow the f*** up and get the damn shot.” (Id. at PageID 321.) They also handed him Veterans Administration paperwork and “told him to fill it out in order to resign from the [u]niversity[,]” said that they “would take him to the student center to get vaccinated[,]” and made other disparaging statements. (Id. at PageID 321–22.) Once Koopman and Koo learned that Elliott was unable to come to the police station, they allowed Warman to leave. On September 17, 2021, MSJPD posted a memorandum from Koopman and Koo addressed to all officers that contained a picture of Warman, provided his class schedule, described his car, and listed both his license plate and student permit numbers. The memorandum included the following instruction:
Below is the photograph of Matthew Warman. If you see him on Campus, stop him and check to see how he is doing. Politely ask why he is here. You are not to arrest him or tell him to leave Campus. Just keep an eye on him. (Keep in mind that he is a student here and has the right to be on Campus).
(Id. at PageID 323; Ex. A. of Compl., R. 1-1, PageID 30.) After the memorandum was posted, Warman described being watched and followed by campus police officers, including one incident where Koopman watched Warman take a call with his doctor. On September 20, 2021, MSJU’s Health Services Manager, Amy Metzger, denied Warman’s requested religious exemption to MSJU’s vaccination policy and referred Warman to MSJU’s General Counsel, Paige Ellerman. The next day, Elliott called Warman to meet at her office. Koopman “stationed himself outside the door” of Elliott’s office. (Second Am. Compl., R. 18, PageID 324.) During the meeting, Warman complained that he was being harassed by MSJPD officers, though Elliott did not follow up on Warman’s concerns. Instead, Elliott explained to Warman the necessities of getting vaccinated and that vaccination did not violate Catholic edicts.
Undeterred by his meeting with Elliott, Warman appealed the denial of his religious exemption on September 22, 2021, reiterating that his “sincerely held religious beliefs precluded him, in his conscience, from accepting the vaccine.” (Id. at PageID 325.) Warman also attempted to obtain a religious exemption from a hospital where he was set to perform clinical work but was informed by the Assistant Dean of MSJU’s Department of Nursing, Nancy Hinzman, that he could only obtain an exemption through MSJU. On October 4, 2021, Metzger denied Warman’s appeal for a religious exemption.
Believing that he was still being harassed by MSJPD officers, Warman filed a complaint on the campus police website but received no response. After Warman filed this complaint, MSJPD retaliated by reporting Warman to the FBI and having FBI Agent Ron Willison contact Warman’s psychiatrist. That call, according to Warman, sought “to cause [] Warman’s psychiatrist to falsely believe that [] Warman presented a physical danger to students and staff on campus, a risk of danger to himself, and a risk for causing campus violence[.]” (Id. at PageID 328.)
As a result of this “harassment” and “intimidation[,]” Warman withdrew from MSJU and was obligated to return stipend funds he had received from the Veterans Administration for attending graduate school. (Id. at PageID 330.) He also alleges that the events caused him both physical and emotional trauma.
Warman sued MSJU, MSJPD, and the individual employees he believed were responsible for his harassment on campus and the implementation of MSJU’s vaccination policy. He filed an amended complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court denied defendants’ motion and granted Warman leave to further amend the complaint to add new evidence.
…Since a reasonable person would not feel free to leave when directed by police to remain, Warman was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes. See Richardson, 385 F.3d at 630. And, as Warman had not committed any crime, was not suspected to have committed any crime, and had not even violated the university’s vaccine policy at that time, the officers lacked probable cause. Thus, he plausibly established a denial of his Fourth Amendment rights. Of course, further evidence may reveal otherwise. But at this juncture, we must consider Warman’s allegations to be true.
…We next consider whether Warman has carried his burden of showing that the remaining defendants—Koopman and Koo—are state actors and therefore subject to liability under § 1983.
See Inner City, 87 F.4th at 757; Howell, 976 F.3d at 752. He has met his burden. Private individuals may be considered state actors for the purposes of § 1983 actions if they “exercise power ‘possessed by virtue of state law’ and if they are ‘clothed with the authority of state law.’”
We next consider Warman’s free exercise claim. The Free Exercise Clause, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects against both direct and indirect coercion
or penalties on the free exercise of religion. See Dahl v. Bd. of Trs. of W. Mich. Univ., 15 F.4th 728, 731 (6th Cir. 2021). But not every burden on religious exercise is unconstitutional. Id. at
733.
Warman brings his free exercise claim against MSJU, MSJPD, Elliott, Metzger, Ellerman, Hinzman, Koopman, and Koo. He alleges that these defendants “acted to discriminate and/or retaliate against [] Warman for [] freely exercising his religious preference, based upon his sincerely held beliefs, not to be vaccinated.” (Second Am. Compl., R. 18, PageID 331.) Warman’s free exercise allegations fall into two categories: (1) Koopman’s and Koo’s disparaging remarks about Warman’s religion, and (2) the denial of Warman’s requested religious exemption under MSJU’s vaccine policy, as carried out by MSJU administrators. For the first category, Warman has not shown that his religious exercise was burdened. “While [Warman] has presented facts suggesting that [he] was exposed to religious information [by Koopman and Koo] with which [he] did not agree, [he] has given no indication that the information coerced [him] into doing or not doing anything.” Nikolao v. Lyon, 875 F.3d 310, 316 (6th Cir. 2017). And while he also presented facts that Koopman and Koo disparaged his religious beliefs, “actions that merely offend or cast doubt on religious beliefs do not on that account violate free exercise.” Mozert v. Hawkins Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 827 F.2d 1058, 1068 (6th Cir. 1987) (quoting Grove v. Mead School Dist. No. 354, 753 F.2d 1528, 1543 (9th Cir. 1985)).
Rather, “[a]n actual burden on the profession or exercise of religion is required.” Id. For the second category, Warman has not shown that the defendants involved in the exemption process under MSJU’s vaccine policy were “engaged in state action.” See Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187, 195 (2024). Warman alleges that MSJU’s vaccine policy was implemented by school administrators Karen Elliott, Amy Metzger, Paige Ellerman, and Nancy Hinzman. (See Second Am. Compl., R. 18, PageID 311, 320 (stating that these defendants “created and acted to carry out” the University’s vaccine policy, including “assessing religious exemption requests”).) But MSJU is a private school, and all the administrators alleged to be involved in handling Warman’s exemption requests were private employees.
Warman argues only that the administrators are state actors “with respect to their direction of MSJPD.” (Appellant Br. 18–19.) As Warman sees it, Koo and Koopman were state actors because they exercised state police power “traditionally exclusively reserved to the state,” and MSJU administrators were state actors because they allegedly “control[led] and direct[ed]” Koo and Koopman. Id. (quotations omitted). To be sure, as we previously explained, we believe that Koo and Koopman engaged in state action when they exercised state police power to detain Warman. See supra Part III.A.2.ii. But we must evaluate whether “the specific conduct of which the plaintiff complains” is state action for each of Warman’s claims. Lindke, 601 U.S. at 767 (citation omitted). With regard to his claim that MSJU’s vaccine policy violated his free exercise rights, the “specific conduct” at issue, id., is MSJU’s denial of Warman’s religious exemption. Warman does not explain how that denial—a private administrative decision made by the private employees of a private university—is an exercise of state power. Indeed, that denial is wholly separate from MSJPD’s police activities. Consequently, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Warman’s free exercise claim as to all defendants.
Judge Cole | “Warman v. Mount St. Joseph Univ., et al.” | July 18, 2025
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Browse the Heidelshop!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Heidelblog
The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.
More by Heidelblog ›