In Zinman v. Nova Southeastern University, Inc., (11th Cir., March 29, 2023), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Florida federal district court's dismissal of a suit by a Jewish law student challenging on religious grounds his school's COVID mask mandates. The court said in part:
None of Zinman’s claims are viable. His application for injunctive relief is moot as to all of the defendants. Zinman’s damages claims fare no better. His Title II claim fails because damages are not available under Title II of the Civil Rights Act. His Title VI claim fails because the Second Amended Complaint does not contain any factual allegations -- as it must -- from which we could infer that any of the masking decisions NSU made were animated by discriminatory intent. And his § 1983 claims fail because Zinman has not plausibly alleged that any of his constitutional rights were violated.....
Zinman has failed to state a claim for a free exercise violation arising under the First Amendment because Zinman does not explain why the mask mandates were not neutral and generally applicable. Neutral rules of general application are subject only to rational basis review.... The adoption of mask mandates easily passed this test....
Zinman has also failed to state a claim for a free speech violation because wearing a mask is not speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment....
The likelihood is exceedingly remote and attenuated that a reasonable passerby observing Zinman without a mask on would interpret his unmasked status as an attempt to convey some sort of message. There are so many more probable explanations for a person’s decision to go unmasked that have nothing to do with conveying any sort of message -- political, religious, or otherwise. Thus, for example, a person may not be masked for medical reasons, or because he left his mask at home, or perhaps just on account of a personal dislike for masking.
