![Elbert P. Tuttle Courthouse, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Atlanta. Photo: Rebecca Breyer/ALM](http://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/392/2021/11/Eleventh-Circuit-Court-Of-Appeals-Building-767x633-1.jpg)
Arguments Set for February in Disabled Students Mask Case
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit will hear arguments in February in a dispute about whether Gov. Ron DeSantis' efforts to prevent school mask mandates violated laws designed to protect the rights of people with disabilities.
November 23, 2021 at 01:21 PM
4 minute read
A federal appeals court is scheduled to hear arguments in February in a dispute about whether Gov. Ron DeSantis' efforts to prevent school mask mandates violated laws designed to protect the rights of people with disabilities.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit issued a notice last week that said arguments will be held the week of Feb. 7 in Miami. The case centers on a July 30 executive order that DeSantis issued to try to prevent school districts from requiring students to wear masks during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Families of children with disabilities sought a preliminary injunction against the order, but U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore rejected the request in September. That led attorneys for the families to go to the Atlanta-based appeals court, contending that the state has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and another law, the Rehabilitation Act, that protect the rights of people with disabilities.
In a brief filed last week, attorneys for the families wrote that the "case is about whether children with disabilities who are at a heightened risk of severe illness or death if they contract COVID-19 can safely attend their schools."
"These children are left in limbo as they face an increased risk of illness or death if they go to school or an irrecoverable loss to their education if they enroll in substandard virtual or homebound schooling," the 81-page brief said. "A reasonable accommodation is available to make in-person classes safe to attend: universal masking."
DeSantis' executive order led to the Florida Department of Health issuing rules aimed at barring school mask mandates and the Florida Department of Education imposing financial penalties on districts that bucked the rules. The Republican-controlled Legislature went a step further during a special session last week, passing a law that bars local school officials from requiring students to wear masks.
While some school districts challenged the Department of Health rules and required students to wear masks, those districts in recent weeks have dropped mask mandates. DeSantis and other state Republican leaders have argued for months that parents should be able to decide whether children wear masks.
The disabilities lawsuit was filed in August and includes the families of 15 children with a variety of disabilities such as Down syndrome, autism-spectrum disorders and chronic kidney disease.
In a Sept. 15 decision rejecting a preliminary injunction, Moore wrote that the plaintiffs should have pursued administrative claims before filing the lawsuit. He said the plaintiffs have different circumstances, requiring "unique solutions."
"The court finds all plaintiffs would be substantially benefited by pursuing administrative remedies that can provide tailored solutions to each child's individual needs," Moore wrote.
The judge also wrote that the plaintiffs had not shown "irreparable harm because they have not been denied educational services all together." In a court document filed last month, attorneys for the state backed Moore on both issues.
"The district court was also right to conclude that plaintiffs have not alleged an irreparable educational injury sufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction," the attorneys for the state wrote. "The temporary denial of plaintiffs' preference for in-person instruction in the locations and on all the terms that they would dictate to their local schools is not an irreparable injury."
But in the brief filed last week, attorneys for the families disputed that they needed to exhaust an administrative claims process. They also wrote that the Americans with Disabilities Act "prohibits discrimination against a qualified disabled person because of their disability."
"At its heart, this case is about a challenge to a law that prevents the families' children from attending school with other children," the brief said. "Under the governor's order, the defendants have unlawfully discriminated against the families by failing to make and enforce a reasonable modification — universal masking mandates — that would permit children with disabilities to safely attend in-person learning with their non-disabled classmates."
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![COVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms COVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/392/2024/11/medical-advice-767x633.jpg)
COVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
![Attorneys Battle PPP Loan-Forgiveness Woes for Hotel Clients Attorneys Battle PPP Loan-Forgiveness Woes for Hotel Clients](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/392/2024/07/Jernigan-Hurst-767x633.jpg)
Attorneys Battle PPP Loan-Forgiveness Woes for Hotel Clients
!['Acceptance' of Return-to-Work Policies Permeates Big Law 'Acceptance' of Return-to-Work Policies Permeates Big Law](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/405/2024/05/Business-People-Return-to-Work-767x633.jpg)
![Returning to Court in a Post-COVID Era: The Pros and Cons of a Virtual Court System Returning to Court in a Post-COVID Era: The Pros and Cons of a Virtual Court System](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/392/2024/03/Daniel-Gielchinsky-767x633.jpg)
Returning to Court in a Post-COVID Era: The Pros and Cons of a Virtual Court System
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Munger, Gibson Dunn Billed $63 Million to Snap in 2024
- 2January Petitions Press High Court on Guns, Birth Certificate Sex Classifications
- 3'A Waste of Your Time': Practice Tips From Judges in the Oakland Federal Courthouse
- 4Judge Extends Tom Girardi's Time in Prison Medical Facility to Feb. 20
- 5Supreme Court Denies Trump's Request to Pause Pending Environmental Cases
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250