Revamped Mask Case for Disabled Children Gets Go-Ahead
U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore allowed attorneys for parents and children with disabilities to file an amended complaint contending that Florida is violating federal laws designed to protect the rights of people with disabilities.
January 21, 2022 at 01:02 PM
4 minute read
Despite objections from Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration, a federal judge has allowed parents and children with disabilities to pursue a revamped lawsuit challenging state decisions that included banning student mask mandates in public schools during the COVID-19 pandemic.
U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore on Wednesday issued an order that allowed attorneys for the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint contending that the state is violating federal laws designed to protect the rights of people with disabilities.
The plaintiffs contend that children with disabilities are more at risk for serious illness and death from COVID-19 and need protections against infection. They argue that the state is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and a federal law known as the Rehabilitation Act.
"By its actions and inactions, all defendants are forcing children out of the schoolhouse into segregated and unequal environments and placing parents … into an impossible situation of having to choose between the health and life of their child and returning to in-person school," the amended complaint filed by Miami attorneys Matthew Dietz and Stephanie Langer. "Further, each child's public school has not offered these students any alternatives that provide them with an equal opportunity to receive equal access to its programs and services and leaves the blame of the failure of doing so at the hands of the state defendants."
Families of children with disabilities initially challenged an executive order that DeSantis issued July 30 to prevent student mask mandates in public schools. Moore in September rejected a request for a preliminary injunction against the order.
The plaintiffs appealed Moore's decision to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the plaintiffs and the state last month filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal. The plaintiffs then sought to file the amended complaint.
In addition to DeSantis' executive order, the amended complaint addresses a law that the Legislature passed in November during a special session. That law, backed by DeSantis, banned student mask mandates and loosened restrictions on students who have been exposed to people with COVID-19. Under the law, those students can attend school so long as they are asymptomatic and have not tested positive for the virus.
The amended complaint names as defendants DeSantis, the Florida Department of Education, Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran, the Florida Department of Health, state Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo and the school boards in Orange, Miami-Dade, Hillsborough, Palm Beach, Alachua and Volusia counties. Students who are plaintiffs in the case live in those school districts.
The children have disabilities such as Down syndrome, severe asthma and a condition known as Trisomy 18, which requires a student to breath through a tracheotomy.
In his September decision rejecting a preliminary injunction in the initial lawsuit, Moore wrote that the plaintiffs should have pursued administrative claims before filing the case. 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.
In a document filed Monday objecting to the filing of the amended complaint, DeSantis administration attorneys said the plaintiffs still had not pursued administrative claims.
"As with the original complaint, it is clear from the proposed amendment that plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before asserting claims challenging the quality and availability of special-education accommodations from their local public schools," the document said.
In his order Wednesday allowing the amended complaint, Moore wrote that "it makes sense to address state defendants' arguments in the ordinary course of this case, such as through a motion to dismiss. Additionally, the court finds that leave to amend the complaint is warranted in order to afford plaintiffs the opportunity to cure previous deficiencies in the complaint."
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 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 AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
- 1Alston & Bird Achieves Higher Rating for Medicare Advantage Insurance Companies
- 2This Year's Biggest Winners and Losers in UK Corporate Clients
- 3Freshfields Hires SEC Associate Director in Latest D.C. Lateral Hiring Spree
- 4Jury Finds Dentons, Ex-Partner Beats Malpractice Claim Over $54 Million Currency Deal
- 5Former Cahill Executive Committee Member, Leveraged Finance Pioneer Dies at 67
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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