close

Lawsuit filed in connection with Peters Township mask mandate

By Harry Funk staff Writer hfunk@thealmanac.Net 4 min read
article image -

Peters Township School Board’s original vote to amend the district’s health and safety policy to require universal masking resulted in a lawsuit.

Following the board’s Aug. 16 action, a complaint was filed in Washington County Court of Common Please, with plaintiffs listed as Dominic Batista and more than 100 others who “are adult individuals residing in Peters Township … and are parents or guardians of children currently enrolled in the Peters Township School District, or are concerned citizens or taxpayers.”

Defendants in the suit, dated Aug. 24, are Peters Township School Board of Directors, along with district Superintendent Jeannine French and the board members who voted in favor of the requirement, Minna Allison, Rebecca Bowman, Ronald Dunleavy, Jennifer Grossman and Daniel Taylor. Also named is Shelly Belcher, the district’s communications coordinator.

On Wednesday afternoon, the school district released this statement:

“The district is aware of these filings, and we are prepared to vigorously contest the allegations.

“The board has continuously engaged with community partners and stakeholders throughout the pandemic regarding its related challenges. Although at times difficult, the district has consistently taken steps to provide and protect an open decision making process for its citizens consistent with the Sunshine Law. We continue to do so now.

“Prior to litigation, the district organized and advertised a special voting meeting for Wednesday, Aug. 25 at 6:30 p.m. to ensure that all residents could, again, address their elected officials on recent Board business in a larger forum. All residents wishing to address the board are encouraged to attend.”

The lawsuit, for which a jury trial is demanded, calls for injunctive relief from the masking mandate and claims violation of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act. Also, the complaint notes that although the district provides a remote learning option for children, the deadline for enrolling was July 2, “well before any amendment to the health and safety policy was discussed or adopted.”

The request for an injunction to stop the mask mandate was denied Friday by Washington County Senior Judge Katherine Emery.

Sought by the plaintiffs, among other judgments, is “declaratory relief that Peters Township School District does not have the statutory authority to enact and enforce a universal mask mandate.”

Regarding the Sunshine Act, the suit contends that because in-person attendance at the Aug. 16 board meeting was limited to 24 members of the public who were issued tickets on a first-come, first-served basis, about 50 to 60 people “were unable to gain entrance.”

At the time of the meeting, according to the court document, no Pennsylvania “executive orders or health regulations limiting gatherings in indoor spaces” were in place. Another claim is that neither a livestream nor audio broadcast of the meeting was available in real time for those who gathered in the foyer and outside the front entrance of the district administration building.

Subsequently, the district posted a full video of the nearly three-hour meeting on the platform Vimeo with a link from Peters Township Community Television.

The lawsuit contains statements, prefaced by “It is believed” and “It seems abundantly obvious,” regarding the supposed actions and motivations of several school board members.

With regard to the mask-wearing requirement, the suit cites Pennsylvania’s “religious exemption” for vaccinating children and subsequently states: “It strains logic to claim that parents may assert an exemption to immunization for diseases such as measles and mumps, which require a physical injection, yet not be able to assert a similar exemption from the wearing of a medical device to prevent a disease not even listed by the Department of Health as one requiring immunization.”

Challenged in the lawsuit is the authority of the school board to make sure a requirement, with language from state law quoted:

“The governing board has the authority to make reasonable and necessary rules governing the conduct of students in school. The rulemaking power, however, is not unlimited; it must operate within statutory and constitutional restraints.”

CUSTOMER LOGIN

If you have an account and are registered for online access, sign in with your email address and password below.

NEW CUSTOMERS/UNREGISTERED ACCOUNTS

Never been a subscriber and want to subscribe, click the Subscribe button below.

Starting at $/week.

Subscribe Today