ALLENTOWN – A group of Montgomery County citizens has voluntarily dismissed litigation they filed, claiming the lives of schoolchildren were being negatively impacted by a switch from in-person learning to virtual learning.
John Mark Niehls, Elizabeth Weir, Andrew Amrhein and Kate Amrhein of Montgomery County filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 20 versus the Montgomery County Office of Public Health and the Montgomery County Board of Health, both of Norristown.
(An amended complaint was filed on Nov. 30.)
“Notwithstanding research and guidance issued by the Center for Disease Control and Pennsylvania Governor [Tom Wolf], on Nov. 12, 2020, the Montgomery County Board of Health ordered all schools in Montgomery County from kindergarten through twelfth grade, both public and private, including special needs services, to cease in-school operations and switch to virtual learning from Nov. 23, 2020 until Dec. 6, 2020. The Board reserved the right to extend this closure order at its upcoming meeting on Dec. 2, 2020,” the suit stated.
“The Board’s order was made in an arbitrary and capricious manner and in direct contradiction of the leading scientific research, data and guidance from the CDC and governors of six northeastern states.”
The plaintiffs believed that the school closures being experienced in Montgomery County are both detrimental towards the psyches and learning abilities of K-12 schoolchildren and in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
“Research has also demonstrated that the absence of a structured setting, such as is provided in school, for a long duration results in reduced capacity for engaging in various academic and extracurricular activities, as well as in lower levels of affect,” the suit said.
“Some studies have predicted that, when a full return to school is initiated, children who were unable to attend due to COVID-19 distancing may resist going to school and may face difficulty in establishing rapport with their mentors. Consequently, these studies conclude, constraints of movement imposed on children – particularly exclusion from school – can have a long-term deleterious effect on overall psychological well-being.”
Furthermore, the suit noted that neighboring counties had not taken the same measures for their schools as Montgomery County did.
“The City of Philadelphia issued a draconian shut-down to extend through the end of 2020 which prohibited all indoor dining, limited to 10 percent occupancy all outdoor dining, and closed all school sports, gyms, museums, libraries, colleges, and high schools. Nonetheless, the City of Philadelphia allowed Pre-K, elementary, and middle schools to remain open,” per the suit.
“Just like Philadelphia County, neighboring Bucks County continues to allow in person learning for elementary age students notwithstanding their implementation of other COVID-related limitations.”
Referencing a recent decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Montgomery County defendants labeled the case “moot” in its motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim, filed on Dec. 21.
“Just five days ago, the United States Supreme Court refused to intervene to lift a stay of a preliminary injunction granted by the trial court in a case involving the Governor of Kentucky’s facially neutral order temporarily closing all K-12 schools for in-person instruction until the beginning of the Christmas holiday break,” the defendants’ answer read, in part.
“Based upon the timing and impending expiration of the Governor’s order, the U.S. Supreme Court noted in refusing to lift the stay that the parties could come back to raise the issues if new restrictions were put in place down the road. Given that the order in this case has expired, was enacted due to the unique facts surrounding the Thanksgiving holiday and has not been extended even as the Christmas holiday approaches; this Court should conclude that the issues are moot.”
The defendants countered that all of the plaintiffs’ claims lack legal standing.
“Here, defendants had a rational basis for adopting the order requiring all virtual education for a very limited two-week period. That rational basis is specifically set forth in the order itself. Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety and for such other relief the Court deems just and appropriate,” the answer said.
UPDATE
Just after the new year began, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their action against the defendants.
“Plaintiffs, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby dismiss all causes of action in the complaint against defendants herein, without prejudice. Defendants have filed neither an answer to the complaint nor a motion for summary judgment as to these claims. Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is, therefore, appropriate,” per the plaintiff’s notice.
The plaintiffs were represented by Jordan P. Shuber, Thomas W. King III and Thomas E. Breth of Dillon McCandless King Coulter & Graham in Butler, plus Christian M. Petrucci of the Law Offices of Christian Petrucci, in Bala Cynwyd.
The defendants were represented by Mary Kay Brown, Raymond McGarry and Jami B. Nimeroff of Brown McGarry Nimeroff, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:20-cv-05855
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com