PITTSBURGH – Parents of three autistic children and an adult with a diagnosed case of anxiety and respiratory issues, who argued that pre-existing medical conditions prevented them or their children from wearing masks at Kennywood Park, Sandcastle Water Park and Idlewild Park during the early portion of the COVID-19 pandemic, have lost their case through summary judgment.
Their litigation stated that during the first part of the pandemic, it was the policy of the above amusement parks to require everyone who visits to wear a mask with no exceptions, not even for medical conditions.
This policy was later lifted when the parks opened for the season last year.
Plaintiffs Janine Wood of Bolivar, Jackie Webber of Kennedy, Lisa Mazzoni of Irwin and Ryan Walsh of Verona first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on July 10, 2020, versus Palace Entertainment (doing business as “Kennywood Park”) of Newport Beach, Calif, Kennywood Park of West Mifflin, Sandcastle Waterpark of Homestead, and Idlewild and Soakzone of Ligonier.
The plaintiffs believed that initial mandatory mask policy violated not just state guidelines provided by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
(Wood was later dismissed from the litigation on Dec. 16, 2021.)
Wood, Webber and Mazzoni all have children diagnosed with autism, Wood has a respiratory disorder connected to physical and mental conditions, Mazzoni suffers from muscular dystrophy and Walsh also has a confirmed diagnosis for anxiety and respiratory problems.
The suit said the parks violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when they denied each the plaintiffs and their children entry, though the plaintiffs had season passes to the various parks and the parks themselves provided special passes to two of the plaintiffs’ autistic children.
During the pandemic, the amusement parks in question also put other precautions in place, like managing visitor capacity and taking visitors’ temperatures at entrances. Anyone who presented with a temperature of 100.4°F or higher or outward coronavirus symptoms was not admitted, and visitors were required to register for their park visit after buying a ticket.
In an Oct. 16, 2020 dismissal motion, defendant Palace Entertainment maintained that the case should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
On April 27, 2022, Palace Entertainment filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking a complete dismissal of the case.
UPDATE
In a March 29 memorandum opinion, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge David S. Cercone granted that same summary judgment motion in favor of the defense.
“Presently before the court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted. Specifically, plaintiffs’ Title III ADA discrimination and retaliation/coercion claims at Counts I and II of the complaint will be dismissed as moot,” Cercone said.
“Furthermore, the court will decline to further exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff H.W.’s remaining state law claim for negligence/reckless conduct at Count III. Therefore, this state law claim will be dismissed without prejudice so that plaintiff H.W. may further pursue her claims in state court if she chooses to do so.”
Cercone added that “a general mask policy was not unilaterally imposed without reason upon the defendant’s employees and guests by a representative of the defendant”, but rather, “the mask policies were imposed at the defendant’s parks in response to a global pandemic and several mask mandate orders issued by the Governor and the Secretary of Health.”
“Further, the defendant has since discontinued its challenged mask requirement as businesses operating within Pennsylvania are no longer subject to a statewide mandate requiring that their guests wear masks. Thus, the ability for the same type of restrictions to be imposed in places of public accommodation has been greatly diminished,” Cercone said.
“In light of the foregoing, with the medical advancements we have as a society at our disposal to curb the threat of another devastating COVID-19 outbreak, it appears that in order for the plaintiffs to be subject to a mandatory mask policy within the defendant’s parks again in the near future, not only would a second global pandemic need to occur, but the Governor’s authority to enter the same orders also would need to be reinstated. It follows that there is not a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again. As a result, neither of the required conditions for this exception can be met. Accordingly, in consideration of the foregoing, the court finds that plaintiffs’ Title III ADA discrimination and retaliation/coercion claims are moot, and that no exception to the mootness doctrine is applicable to save their claims from dismissal.”
Cercone said he arrived at that conclusion because “the mask requirement is no longer in effect and [since] guests were able to visit the park without a mask in 2022, the plaintiffs have essentially already been afforded the relief they requested.”
While Cercone dismissed the federal claims from the case, the state law claim of alleged violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act would remain – but it could not be pursued in federal court.
“Here, when taking into consideration that all of the plaintiffs’ federal law claims will be dismissed, leaving only a single state law claim by a single plaintiff, the court finds that the interests of judicial economy, convenience and fairness weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction, so that plaintiff H.W. may pursue her state law claim in state court. Further, the parties will be able to benefit from the development of that claim while it has been pending in this Court and are free to ask for expedited resolution based on that development, should they desire to do so,” Cercone concluded.
The plaintiffs were represented by Thomas B. Anderson of Thomson Rhodes & Cowie, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants were represented by Kerry Alan Scanlon, Paul Michael Thompson and Jeremy M. White of McDermott Will & Emery, in Washington, D.C.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-01029
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com