Wynkoop v. Avonworth Sch. Dist.

1

HARRY WYNKOOP, individually and on behalf of his minor children J.W. and G.W., Plaintiff, v. AVONWORTH SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 22-814

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

August 7, 2023

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PATRICIA L. DODGE, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. Recommendation

It is respectfully recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) be granted in part and denied in part.

II. Report

Plaintiff Harry Wynkoop, individually and on behalf of his minor children, J.W. and G.W., brings this civil rights action against the Avonworth School District (the “District”), Superintendent Jeff Hadley and the members of the district's School Board (Yu-Ling Cheng-Behr, Kristin Thompason, Beau Blaser, John Brandt, Vicki Carlson, Danielle White, Kathryn Monti, Patrick Stewart and Amy Tokar, along with former Board member Sandra Bolain) (“School Board”). This action arises out of the School District's enactment of a required masking policy for its schools in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a measure against which Wynkoop protested.

The Amended Complaint^[1]raises claims of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); 34 C.F.R. § 100.7(e) (Section 504). The Amended Complaint further asserts a claim that Defendants failed to accommodate J.W.'s disability, in violation of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134.

Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss.

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff commenced this action in May 2022 and later amended his complaint in December 2022 (ECF No. 10). Count I, which is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleges that Defendants retaliated against Wynkoop for exercising his rights under the First Amendment by refusing to honor medical exemptions from masking requirements for his children, J.W. and G.W.,^[2]segregating J.W. to online learning, and failing to provide J.W. with a tutor. Count I also asserts that Defendants demanded that Wynkoop disenroll J.W. and G.W. without any evidence that they did not reside within the District, selectively investigated their residency and publicly disseminated personally identifiable information about them. In Count II, Plaintiff claims that in violation of the ADA, Defendants refused to make a reasonable accommodation for J.W.'s disability. Finally, Count III alleges that Defendants retaliated against Wynkoop and his family for his protected conduct in violation of both the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) which has been fully briefed (ECF Nos. 14, 20). Oral argument was held on July 20, 2023.

B. Relevant Background Facts

The Pennsylvania Office of the Governor declared a disaster on March 6, 2020 in response to fear of the spread of COVID-19. (Am. Compl. ¶ 20.) On June 10, 2021, the Pennsylvania General Assembly passed a resolution that ended the Governor's disaster emergency. (Id. ¶ 21.) Upon the termination of the Governor's disaster emergency, school districts in Pennsylvania, including the Avonworth School District, evaluated whether to require students to wear masks at the start of the 2021-2022 school year. (Id. ¶ 22.)

At a School Board meeting on August 2, 2021, the Board discussed whether to require all students to wear masks in order to enter school buildings. (Am. Compl.¶ 23.) Plaintiff attended the meeting in order to oppose forced masking. (Id. ¶ 24.) During a subsequent meeting, the Board voted to “force all students to wear masks in order to enter school buildings.” (Id. ¶ 25.)

On August 16, 2021, then-Board member Bolain emailed Board President Carlson to inquire whether Plaintiff's children resided within the District and asked whether a protest in which Plaintiff was slated to participate could “be stopped.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 26 & Ex. A.) On the same date, Plaintiff attended another meeting of the Board to express his opposition to forced masking. (Id. ¶ 27.) Several days later, Plaintiff held an opposition rally at the Ohio Township Community Park regarding Defendants' forced masking plan. (Id. ¶ 28.)

Thereafter, on August 31, 2021, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Health issued an Order that “purported to require all schools within the Commonwealth to force students to wear face coverings, unless ‘wearing a face covering would either cause a medical condition, or exacerbate an existing one, including respiratory issues that impede breathing, a mental health condition or a disability.'” (Am. Compl. ¶ 29.) The Secretary's Order also provided that school must: “Provide reasonable accommodations for individuals who state they have a medical condition, mental health condition, or disability that makes it unreasonable for the person to maintain a face covering.” (Id. ¶ 30.)

Plaintiff had J.W. and G.W. evaluated by Dr. Michael Daly, a licensed medical doctor, for the purpose of obtaining a medical exemption from the mask requirement.^[3](Am. Compl. ¶ 31.) According to Plaintiff, Dr. Daly determined that due to J.W.'s asthma condition, J.W. qualified for a medical exemption. (Id. ¶ 32 & Ex. B.) Plaintiff submitted this statement to the District, but it refused to honor the medical exemption. (Id. ¶¶ 33-34.) Later, on November 17, 2021, Plaintiff submitted a medical exemption note from Dr. William C. Churma, who opined that “wearing a mask may activate [J.W.'s] breathing disorder.” (Id. ¶ 35 & Ex. C.) Another medical exemption was submitted on December 17, 2021 from William P. Mueller, M.D., who stated that J.W. “has valid medical reasons to be exempted from wearing a mask and/or face shield while attending school and/or any school functions.” (Id. ¶ 36 & Ex. D.) On February 14, 2022, Plaintiff submitted a statement from Dr. Lisa Hwang, MD who advised that J.W. “has been a patient of [Caring Hands Pediatrics] since 3/30/2017” and that J.W. has been diagnosed with asthma and has been treated for “asthma exacerbations several times.” (Id. ¶ 37 & Ex. E.)

Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the District's refusal to honor medical exemptions for J.W., she was segregated from her peers and forced to endure virtual learning. (Am. Compl. ¶ 38.) As a result, J.W.'s grades slipped dramatically. (Id. ¶ 39.) While the District has provided tutors for other students in the District in virtual learning programs and promised to provide a tutor for J.W., it never did so. (Id. ¶¶ 40-41.)

There are no allegations in the Amended Complaint that G.W. had medical exemptions, was segregated from his peers or was required to engage in virtual learning. At oral argument, counsel conceded that G.W. does not have a medical condition but that he opted not to wear a mask out of “solidarity” with his sister.

Plaintiff participated in circulating a petition to the District asking Defendants to revoke the forced masking policy (Am. Compl. ¶ 42) and held additional rallies in August and September 2021 at the Ohio Township Community Park opposing Defendants' forced masking plan. (Id. ¶¶ 43-44). Plaintiff also attended a Board meeting on September 13, 2021, where he again expressed his opposition to the District's masking plan. (Id. ¶ 45.) Thereafter, Plaintiff alleges, the District publicly disseminated in an email personally identifiable information regarding Plaintiff, Plaintiff's wife, and the identity of J.W. (Id. ¶¶ 46-47.)

On November 11, 2021, the District, through its legal counsel, sent a letter to Plaintiff falsely alleging that his minor children reside outside of the District and demanding that Plaintiff disenroll J.W. and G.W. from the District no later than November 23, 2021. This correspondence also threatened Plaintiff with the possibility of being forced to pay “the value of back tuition” for all of the time that his children were improperly enrolled in the District. (Am. Compl. ¶ 48 & Ex. F.) The District originally scheduled a hearing regarding G.W.'s residency on December 14, 2021; however, due to scheduling conflicts, the hearing was postponed. (Id. ¶ 51.)

On December 10, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared the Secretary of Health's masking order void. Corman v. Acting Secretary of Pa. Dep't of Health, 268 A.3d 1080 (Pa. 2021). (Am. Compl. ¶ 74.) The District then voted on December 17, 2021, to make masks optional during after-school events but continued to require students to wear masks in order to enter school buildings during the day. (Id. ¶ 73.)

Plaintiff attended a meeting on January 6, 2022, with Superintendent Hadley, Elementary School Principal Bill Battistone, a member of Section 504 team, and the District's counsel, to discuss the letter sent to him regarding his children's residency. During the meeting, counsel for the District admitted that it had no evidence that J.W. resided outside the District. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 49-50.)

Beginning in early January, 2022, Plaintiff was frequently critical of the District's masking policy on his radio program and on social media. (Am. Compl. ¶ 52.) On January 31, 2022, Plaintiff emailed Superintendent Hadley to inquire whether he had any comment regarding the dichotomy of requiring students to wear masks during school hours but allowing student and others to attend a wrestling tournament without masks that had occurred over the weekend. (Id. ¶¶ 53-54.) Hours after this email was sent, the District's counsel scheduled a residency hearing for G.W. (Id. ¶ 55.)

The hearing was held on February 8, 2022, regarding the residency of J.W. and G.W. (Am. Compl. ¶ 56.)^[4] During the hearing, the District revealed that it had hired a private investigator to conduct surveillance of P...