MATTHEW WARMAN v. MOUNT ST. JOSEPH UNIVERSITY; MOUNT ST. JOSEPH POLICE DEPARTMENT; KEVIN KOO; NORB KOOPMAN; KAREN ELLIOTT; AMY METZGER aka Amy Demko; PAIGE LEIGH ELLERMAN; NANCY HINZMAN - Articles

All Content

MATTHEW WARMAN v. MOUNT ST. JOSEPH UNIVERSITY; MOUNT ST. JOSEPH POLICE DEPARTMENT; KEVIN KOO; NORB KOOPMAN; KAREN ELLIOTT; AMY METZGER aka Amy Demko; PAIGE LEIGH ELLERMAN; NANCY HINZMAN

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Jul 18, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Ronald A. Berutti, MURRAY-NOLAN BERUTTI LLP, Cedar Knolls, New Jersey, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Ilana L. Linder, MANLEY BURKE, LPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Ronald A. Berutti, MURRAY-NOLAN BERUTTI LLP, Cedar Knolls, New Jersey, Matthew S. Okiishi, FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Ilana L. Linder, Timothy M. Burke, MANLEY BURKE, LPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees.

Judge(s): COLE, WHITE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati

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

Attachments: