[pauldun170]

Dr. Callaway later informed plaintiff that she would not be assigned any more
clients, and that she, Callaway, would be requesting an informal review before herself
and plaintiff's advisor, Professor Dugger, as to whether she had violated University and
ACA policies prohibiting "unethical, threatening, or unprofessional conduct," an "inability
to tolerate different points of view," "imposing values that are inconsistent with
counseling goals," and "discrimination based on . . . sexual orientation." Defendants
stated that this informal review was scheduled due to plaintiff’s performance in Praticum
and in order to discuss her obligation to provide counseling based on the client’s values
and not those of the counselor. (Tr. of Formal Review, 4:19-5:17). Dr. Dugger insists
that during the review, she repeatedly assured plaintiff that she was “not incompetent.”
(Feb. 4 Email String Among Callaway, Dugger, & Tracy). A letter dated February 2,
2009 documents the informal review:
During the meeting, Dr. Callaway expressed a serious concern about
your performance in practicum. Specifically, she indicated that you
have communicated bias against clients who identify as lesbian, gay
Case 2:09-cv-11237-GCS-PJK Document 139 Filed 07/26/10 Page 3 of 48
4
or bisexual and that you have refused to accept a gay person as a
client in practicum with the explanation that counseling gay people
about relationship issues violates your religious beliefs. Dr. Callaway
explained that the EMU counseling program, in accordance with the
ethical standards of the counseling profession (American Counseling
Association, 2005), requires that students demonstrate in practicum
the ability to consistently set aside their personal values or beliefs
systems and work with the value system of the client. She stated that
your refusal to see a client presenting with concerns about his gay
relationship signified an unwillingness or inability on your part to meet
this expectation.
At the end of the informal review, plaintiff was given the choices of: (1) completing a
"remediation program" directed; (2) voluntarily leaving the Counseling Program; or (3)
requesting a formal hearing. The remediation program was contingent on “Ms. Ward’s
recognition that she needed to make some changes.” (Tr. of Formal Review, 8:4-7).
Plaintiff “communicated an attempt to maintain this belief system and those behaviors,”
refused to participate in the remediation program, and instead chose to have a formal
hearing. Id.
A formal hearing was held on March 10, 2009 and was attended by Professors
Callaway and Dugger. Others serving on the hearing panel were Professors Ametrano,
Francis, and Marx, and student representative Stanifer. During the review, plaintiff said
that while she objected to counseling homosexual clients on their same-sex
relationships, she would counsel them on any other issue; moreover, she refused to
affirm any behavior that “goes against what the Bible says.” In addition, plaintiff stated
that she disagreed with the ACA’s prohibition on reparative therapy (viz., therapy
targeted at changing a homosexual individual’s sexual orientation), but that she would
comply with such rules. Also during the review, Dr. Francis engaged plaintiff in the
following “theological bout”:

Academic disciplinary action may be initiated when a student exhibits
the following behavior in one discrete episode that is a violation of
law or of the ACA Code of Ethics and/or when a student exhibits a
documented pattern of recurring behavior which may include, but is
not limited to . . . [u]nethical, threatening, or unprofessional conduct; .
. . [c]onsistent inability or unwillingness to carry out academic or field
placement responsibilities; . . . inability to tolerate different points of
view, constructive feedback or supervision.

http://www.au.org/what-we-do/lawsuit...district-1.pdf