PHILADELPHIA – Pennsylvania federal courts must now contend with a split between the Eastern and Western districts on the issue of school mask mandates, as a ruling last week from a Philadelphia judge denying the Perkiomen Valley School District’s attempt to stop its mandate broke from the trend of recent rulings in more westward courts.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Wendy Beetlestone issued a 60-page ruling on Feb. 7, finding favor with eight anonymous plaintiffs, five parents and three children, who sued the Perkiomen Valley School District to prevent its authorities from rescinding its mask mandate, and replacing it with a mask-optional policy.
Included part and parcel with Beetlestone’s decision is an indefinite preliminary injunction, compelling the District to continue its mask mandate.
The suit was predicated on whether stopping a mask mandate would likely violate the rights of ill or immunocompromised children who may face grave health risks or stop attending school entirely without such a mandate.
In the wake of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s decision to invalidate the statewide school mask mandate in December, the issue has been a flashpoint and lightning rod for division in both school districts and courts across the state.
Within five days last month, a pair of federal judges in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania handed down contrasting rulings on the issue of mask mandates.
Judge Marilyn J. Horan concurred with Beetlestone, ruling Jan. 17 in a case involving North Allegheny School District that a temporary restraining order would interrupt the District’s optional mask-wearing policy, finding that affected students would suffer “immediate and irreparable injury” otherwise.
Meanwhile, on Jan. 22, Judge William Stickman IV chose not to grant such a temporary restraining order versus the Upper Saint Clair School District, concluding that the plaintiffs weren’t able to demonstrate true injury and that the order sought by the plaintiffs was unreasonable.
Stickman’s ruling is already on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Beetlestone honed in on the subject of whether the child-plaintiffs in question would face “disparate impact” without a mask mandate in place. All three children are asthmatic, with one suffering from damaged vocal cords and another from chronic bronchitis and pneumonia.
“Of course, all children face certain risks pertaining to transmissible diseases when they go to school, from the common cold to the chicken pox. The question is whether the child-plaintiffs face such a heightened risk, due to the impact of the optional masking policy and of their disabilities, that they can no longer be considered to have ‘meaningful access’ to the benefits of their education,” Beetlestone said.
Beetlestone disregarded the focus of Perkiomen Valley School District, which argued that medical science hasn’t answered the question of why certain people are more at risk for serious illness from COVID-19, spanning from the original strain to the current Omicron variant.
“The question of ‘why’ the risk may be heightened for some individuals, however, is neither here nor there for the purposes of this preliminary injunction proceeding. The relevant question is whether they face a heightened risk, and the evidence presented confirms that they do,” Beetlestone stated.
“Without universal indoor masking, the child-plaintiffs face a significant risk of serious illness and/or death if they attend school in-person while transmission are substantial or high. Children without underlying medical conditions do not face this heightened risk. The optional masking policy…prevents the child-plaintiffs from ‘meaningfully accessing’ the benefits of in-person education at this time, because they cannot attend school alongside their unmasked peers without incurring a real risk of serious illness or worse.”
Finding the plaintiffs demonstrated a need for a temporary restraining order in this matter, Beetlestone granted it.
“In these uncertain times, parents and school administrators face excruciating choices about how best to protect the health of the school community while ensuring equal access to education. Each parent is understandably anxious to ensure his or her own child’s needs are met at school. The District and the Board have a responsibility – which they have undertaken with admirable care and commitment – to grapple with the various and sometimes conflicting interests of many students – those who cannot mask due to a disability, those who are immunocompromised, and those who just want things to get back to ‘the normal we know’ as soon as possible,” Beetlestone said.
“The courts play no role in generating educational policy or in questioning the wisdom of elected officials in making such difficult decisions. And this case is not a referendum on mask-wearing in schools or elsewhere. The only issue before this Court is whether plaintiffs have marshalled sufficient evidence to merit a preliminary injunction under the applicable legal standards.”
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-00287
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com