Complaint Against The School District of Palm Beach County

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM

BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
CASE NO.: ____________________
ALEXIA BOLT, individually and

as next friend for JOHN DOE 1
and JOHN DOE 2; and
JOHN SCHMITT and AMANDA

SCHMITT, individually and as
next friends for JOHN DOE 3; and
GARETH BRADLEY and

AMANDA BRADLEY,
individually and as next friends for
JOHN DOE 4; and
ERIK BANDY and COURTNEY

BANDY, individually and as next
friends for JOHN DOE 5; and
MARISA LOCKE, individually

and as next friend for JOHN DOE
6 and JOHN DOE 7; and
SEAN ROOK, individually and as

next friend for JOHN DOE 8 and
JOHN DOE 9; and
KELVIN YU and JESSICA

SZABO, individually and as next
friends for JANE DOE 1; and
ADRIANE SEMIDEI,
individually and as next friend for
JANE DOE 2; and
ALEXANDRA OLSSON,
JANE DOE 3; and
1
ANORA PYATIGORSKAYA,
JOHN DOE 10 and JANE DOE 4;
and
ASHLEY POULETTE,
JANE DOE 5 and JOHN DOE 11;
and
CHELSEA PACKARD,
JANE DOE 6; and
DEANNA HREHOROVICH,
JOHN DOE 12 and JOHN DOE
13; and
DIANA MANALI, individually

and as next friend for JANE DOE
7; and
ESTHER MAY SCIGLIANO,

JANE DOE 8;
JAMIE GRALA, individually and

as next friend for JOHN DOE 14
and JOHN DOE 15; and
JESSICA MARTINEZ,
JANE DOE 9 and JOHN DOE 16;
and
JILL SANTAGATA, individually

17; and
KARLA MILLAN, individually

18; and
KIM SAVINO, individually and

as next friend for JANE DOE 10,
2
JOHN DOE 19, and JANE DOE
11; and
ANA KAUFMANN, individually

12 and JANE DOE 13; and
LISA RUSSO, individually and as

next friend for JOHN DOE 20,
JANE DOE 14, and JOHN DOE
21;
MARTHA ROGGE, individually

22; and
NICOLE WALKER, individually

15; and
MICHAEL LEFEBVRE and

TANYA LEFEBVRE,
JANE DOE 16; and
PHILLIP KEVIN YOUNG, JR.,

and TIFFANY YOUNG,
JANE DOE 17; and
FRANK ANTONUCCI and

TRACY ANTONUCCI,
JOHN DOE 23; and
AMBER COSTA and

CHRISTOPHER COSTA,
JANE DOE 18 and JOHN DOE
24; and
MICHAEL LEONE, individually

25,
Plaintiffs,
3
v.
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF

PALM BEACH COUNTY, as
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF
PALM BEACH COUNTY, a
political subdivision of the State
of Florida;
Defendant.
/
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
COME NOW ALEXIA BOLT, individually and as next friend for JOHN DOE 1 and
JOHN DOE 2; JOHN SCHMITT and AMANDA SCHMITT, individually and as next friends for
JOHN DOE 3; GARETH BRADLEY and AMANDA BRADLEY, individually and as next
friends for JOHN DOE 4; ERIK BANDY and COURTNEY BANDY, individually and as next
friends for JOHN DOE 5; MARISA LOCKE, individually and as next friend for JOHN DOE 6
and JOHN DOE 7; SEAN ROOK, individually and as next friend for JOHN DOE 8 and JOHN
DOE 9; KELVIN YU and JESSICA SZABO, individually and as next friends for JANE DOE 1;
ADRIANE SEMIDEI, individually and as next friend for JANE DOE 2; ALEXANDRA
OLSSON, individually and as next friend for JANE DOE 3; ANORA PYATIGORSKAYA,
individually and as next friend for JOHN DOE 10 and JANE DOE 4; ASHLEY POULETTE,
individually and as next friend for JANE DOE 5 and JOHN DOE 11; CHELSEA PACKARD,
individually and as next friend for JANE DOE 6; DEANNA HREHOROVICH, individually and
as next friend for JOHN DOE 12 and JOHN DOE 13; DIANE MANALI, individually and as
next friend for JANE DOE 7; ESTHER MAY SCIGLIANO, individually and as next friend for
JANE DOE 8; JAMIE GRALA, individually and as next friend for JOHN DOE 14 and JOHN
4
DOE 15; JESSICA MARTINEZ, individually and as next friend for JANE DOE 9 and JOHN
DOE 16; JILL SANTAGATA, individually and as next friend for JOHN DOE 17; KARLA
MILLAN, individually and as next friend for JOHN DOE 18; KIM SAVINO, individually and as
next friend for JANE DOE 10, JOHN DOE 19, and JANE DOE 11; ANA KAUFMANN,
individually and as next friend for JANE DOE 12 and JANE DOE 13; LISA RUSSO,
individually and as next friend for JOHN DOE 20, JANE DOE 14, and JOHN DOE 21;
MARTHA ROGGE, individually and as next friend for JOHN DOE 22; NICOLE WALKER,
individually and as next friend for JANE DOE 15; MICHAEL LEFEBVRE and TANYA
LEFEBVRE, individually and as next friends for JANE DOE 16; PHILLIP KEVIN YOUNG,
JR., and TIFFANY YOUNG, individually and as next friends for JANE DOE 17; FRANK
ANTONUCCI and TRACY ANTONUCCI, individually and as next friends for JOHN DOE 23;
and AMBER COSTA and CHRISTOPHER COSTA, individually and as next friends for JANE
DOE 18 and JOHN DOE 24; and MICHAEL LEONE, individually and as next friend for JOHN
DOE 25, Plaintiffs, requesting judgment of the Court that the THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF
PALM BEACH COUNTY (“School District,” “School Board,” or “SDPBC”) Emergency Rule
adopted August 18, 2021 (the "Facial Covering Mandate") is void under Florida Statutes, the
Florida Constitution, and Florida Department of Health Emergency Rule 64DER21-15, and
because it fails rational basis review and cannot survive strict scrutiny. Plaintiffs request the
Court to issue a declaratory judgment declaring that the Facial Covering Mandate, and the
enforcement thereof, is illegal and to enjoin SDPBC from enforcing its harmful and irrational
Facial Covering Mandate.
5
INTRODUCTION
Is it acceptable for the School Board to inflict harm on certain students in an ill-founded
attempt to eliminate the transmission of one specific virus? Just how much harm to any single
kid is the School Board willing to accept in the pursuit of its ends? The only civilized answer
must, of course, be "none." Just how much financial hardship, anxiety, and heartache can the
School Board mete out to parents who differ from the School Board in their view of what is best
for their children?
The enactment of the Facial Covering Mandate on August 18, 2021, perfectly illustrates
the risks of giving unilateral “emergency powers” to well-meaning but fallible School Board
members and SDPBC bureaucrats, who, once possessed with these powers, wield them like an
oversized paint brush, blotting out valid concerns of parents over their kids' particular health
issues, social development, emotional well-being, and educational progress. Despite the unsettled
science surrounding facial coverings, the message of the Facial Covering Mandate is simple:
“We hold the power, and we will weaponize it against you at a moment's notice despite your
constitutional rights.”
More than nineteen months after COVID-19 was unleashed upon the western world, with
every conscious citizen of this State and this Country having had more than adequate time to
inform himself or herself of the risks of COVID-19 and the potential mitigation measures, and
each having made an independent decision about how to adapt to the reality that COVID-19 is
not going away, the School Board called an emergency meeting for Wednesday, August 18th,
with initial notice sent out just one day before. Throughout this summer, SDPBC represented that
its facial covering policy would include a parental opt-out. Accordingly, the parents of over
6
11,000 students submitted opt-out letters.1 After being faced with intense opposition from
parents at the emergency meeting – these parents providing data to demonstrate the
ineffectiveness of forced facial coverings and relaying personal and traumatic experiences lived
by their children under facial coverings – the School Board enacted its Emergency Rule. The
School Board’s sudden – and illegal – about-face took effect only five days later, leaving
thousands of parents who had relied on the parental opt-out dismayed and scrambling.
In obstinate defiance of the Florida Constitution, the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and
Department of Health Emergency Rule 64DER21-12 (“DOH Rule 1”)2, the School Board
reinstated the most destructive of all potential alternatives: its odious involuntary Facial
Covering Mandate for children. SDPBC clutches onto this harmful policy, in spite of the facts
that the State has rejected facial covering mandates, the First District Court of Appeal held that
facial covering mandates are presumptively unconstitutional, the Department of Health has
rejected facial covering mandates, and the Department of Education has informed counties
around the State that their facial covering policies are not making any difference in slowing the
spread of COVID-19 and they should allow students to opt-out, without conditions. Had the
School Board only spent its time looking at the available data, it would have realized that there is
no statistically significant difference in the COVID-19 transmission rates between the counties in
Florida that have and have never had facial covering mandates. The same is true of states across
the United States, and indeed, entire countries who have never imposed facial covering mandates
on their citizens.
1
https://wiod.iheart.com/featured/florida-news/content/2021-08-20-school-board-member-explains-why-she-voted-
no-to-reversing-parental-opt-out/
2
DOH Rule 1 was later replaced by Florida Department of Health Emergency Rule 64DER21-15 (“DOH Rule 2”),
which the Facial Covering Mandate still violates.
7
Notwithstanding all of that, the School Board irrationally, arbitrarily, and capriciously
pushed forward with perhaps the most restrictive means of trying to mitigate the prevalence of
COVID-19, and without proper consideration of the available less restrictive alternatives. Even
more fatally, many of the School Board’s students have a story to tell about how facial coverings
have caused them physical discomfort, anxiety, and depression, and destroyed their love of going
to school, hampered their education, exacerbated their medical condition, and on and on and on.
Thus, the Court must act now to protect these particular children.
JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS
1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against a chartered county's
public school district located in Florida.
2. Venue is properly in Palm Beach County because it is where the Defendant is
located, it is where the causes of action accrued, and it relates to a certain order issued by
the Defendant or its purported agents within Palm Beach County.
3. Jurisdiction is appropriate in Circuit Court. The Circuit Court has primary
jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to the facial validity of agency rules and
other actions. Plaintiffs require emergency injunctive relief, which can only be obtained
through the Circuit Court. Finally, the subject matter of this case is not within the scope of
SDPBC's authority to resolve.
4. The Circuit Court has authority to review the Facial Covering Mandate, as it was
created under agency rulemaking provisions governed by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes
(the “Administrative Procedures Act" or the “Act”).
5. This lawsuit challenges: (1) SDPBC’s rationale for the Facial Covering Mandate, (2) the
facial and as-applied constitutionality of the Facial Covering Mandate, (3) the legality of the
Facial Covering Mandate under the Parents’ Bill of Rights and the Florida Department of Health
8
Emergency Rule 64DER21-15 (“DOH Rule 2”), and (4) the delegated statutory authority of
SDPBC to implement the Facial Covering Mandate in the first place.
6. The Plaintiffs also seek emergency injunctive relief from the Facial Covering
Mandate.
THE PLAINTIFFS
7. Plaintiff ALEXIA BOLT is a resident of Palm Beach County. She is the mother and legal
guardian of plaintiffs JOHN DOE 1 (twelfth grade) and JOHN DOE 2 (tenth grade), both minor
children who attend a public school in the school district. Mrs. Bolt, JOHN DOE 1, and JOHN
DOE 2 have been harmed by and face harm from the Facial Covering Mandate. Mrs. Bolt brings
this action on her own behalf and on behalf of her children. Plaintiff Bolt has standing to bring
this claim on behalf of JOHN DOE 1 and JOHN DOE 2 as their parent and legal guardian.
8. JOHN DOE 1 suffers from chronic asthma, which is a chronic lung condition. In the Fall
of 2020, JOHN DOE 1’s 504 team rejected JOHN DOE 1’s face shield accommodation
application, disregarding two pediatricians’ requests for such an accommodation in the process.
The 504 team referred the case out to Dr. Tommy Schechtman with the impression that Dr.
Schechtman was the final authority on shield approval. Dr. Schechtman is an advisor to the
School District. Dr. Schechtman rejected the accommodation application. In April 2021, JOHN
DOE 1 was hospitalized for a week for a tennis-ball-sized necrotizing pneumonic abscess in his
lung. The abscess required prolonged IV antibiotics and an invasive IV catheter called a PICC
line. At this point, Mrs. Bolt challenged the 504 team if they or the advisor has the final authority
on the face shield. The 504 team stalled all along. Mrs. Bolt strongly feels that the prolonged
use of wearing a mask for months (even during school tennis team practice any time off the
courts) contributed to the very rare and serious abscess that JOHN DOE 1 developed. None of
the sub-specialists have to this day figured out how or why JOHN DOE 1 got this necrotizing
9
pneumonic abscess. However, because of her and her husband’s professional experience as
nurses, Mrs. Bolt has a high index of suspicion that masks contributed to JOHN DOE 1’s
condition. The 504 team finally approved JOHN DOE 1’s face shield accommodation on May
7, 2021.
9. Mrs. Bolt and her husband signed mask opt-out letters for each of their sons which their
sons turned in on the first day of school, August 10, 2021. The School District dishonored these
letters on August 20.
10. On August 26, 2021, JOHN DOE 1 served lunch detention for failing to wear a mask or
a face shield during first period. Furthermore, JOHN DOE 1 has been escorted out of class,
even as he bravely asserted his rights under state law to go to school without a facial covering.
He has been threatened with progressive discipline if he doesn’t comply, including
incrementally losing his privileges.
11. That JOHN DOE 1 already has a face shield accommodation does not mean that he has
to wear a face shield. Nor does it mean that his school can punish him for not wearing a face
shield. Under the law, JOHN DOE 1 can go to school without anything on his face so long as
his parent has submitted an opt-out letter (which has happened). Therefore, JOHN DOE 1 – and,
by extension, Mrs. Bolt – has standing to sue when his school has punished him for not wearing
his face shield or a mask.
12. JOHN DOE 2 has an endocrine disorder called primary adrenal insufficiency (also
known as Addison’s Disease) which makes dehydration and heat intolerance worse with mask
wearing. In Addison’s Disease, a person’s body does not produce enough of the critical hormone
called cortisol which is required by virtually every bodily system. Dehydration and heat
intolerance are very detrimental to victims of Addison’s Disease. JOHN DOE 2 wore a mask
10
during the 2020-2021 school year. He developed abdominal pain, weight loss, loss of appetite,
and feeling poorly from January to June 2021. Neither his pediatric gastroenterologist nor his
pediatric endocrinologist could figure out what was going on with JOHN DOE 2. He lost 15
pounds and had to do distance learning for six months. He had extensive testing done, including
an invasive procedure called an EGD (an upper GI scope under anesthesia) and still everything
was negative. To this day, those specialists can’t figure out what happened. Due to JOHN DOE
2’s medical history, Mrs. Bolt and her husband (who are both nurses) strongly feel that
prolonged wearing of a mask – in conjunction with his Addison’s Disease – caused JOHN DOE
2 to experience those things. Mrs. Bolt and her husband believe that JOHN DOE 2 should not
be wearing a mask and that he would not benefit from wearing a mask. Additionally, JOHN
DOE 2 has already recovered from COVID-19, so he has natural immunity.
13. Teachers at JOHN DOE 1’s and JOHN DOE 2’s high school are not required to record
their lessons. Some do so of their own volition to assist students who are quarantined, but most
do not. By teachers not recording themselves, students who quarantine or are in out-of-school
suspension (OSS) or in-school-suspension (ISS) completely miss out on instructional time and
will fall behind on lessons, which will have a detrimental effect on a student’s understanding of
course content.
14. Mrs. Bolt is an Emergency Room nurse and her husband is a nurse anesthetist. Both
served as nurses in the United States Air Force. Thus, Mrs. Bolt is qualified as both a parent and
a professional to identify the clinical and sub-clinical harms suffered by her children as a result
of the Facial Covering Mandate.
15. Mrs. Bolt’s sons prefer that that they breathe freely at school as they had been doing
during the first two weeks of school. Mrs. Bolt feels very upset that her sons can no longer opt-
11
out of wearing a mask.
16. As it is her right under Florida law to send her sons to school without masks and without
medical documentation, Mrs. Bolt does not want to once again go through the months-long,
arduous, and bureaucratic process of getting a 504 exemption for her sons.
17. The School District’s elimination of the parental opt-out, its dishonor of opt-out letters,
and the school’s enforcement of the Facial Covering Mandate all violate Fla. Const. Art. I § 23,
the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As a parent, Mrs. Bolt has a fundamental right to
direct the education, medical care, and upbringing of her sons. JOHN DOE 1 and JOHN DOE 2
have a fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes the Defendant from forcing
them to wear facial coverings school. Mrs. Bolt can invoke that right on their behalf. In the case
of JOHN DOE 1, he has a right to go to school without a face shield. Mrs. Bolt and her sons
seek to vindicate their rights. The Defendant’s actions directly, substantially, and unjustifiably
interfere with those rights.
18. Plaintiffs JOHN SCHMITT and AMANDA SCHMITT are residents of Palm Beach
County. They are the parents of JOHN DOE 3 (kindergarten), a minor child who attends a public
school in the School District. Mr. and Mrs. Schmitt are the primary decisionmakers for their
son’s health care and education. Mr. and Mrs. Schmitt and JOHN DOE 3 have been harmed by
and face harm from the Facial Covering Mandate. Mr. and Mrs. Schmitt bring this action on her
own behalf and on behalf of JOHN DOE 3. Mr. and Mrs. Schmitt have standing to bring this
claim on behalf of JOHN DOE 3 as his parent and legal guardian.
19. Mrs. Schmitt submitted an opt-out letter, asserting her parental right to send JOHN DOE
3 to school without a facial covering on. The School District dishonored this letter on August
20.
12
20. During the 2020-2021 school year, JOHN DOE 3 was in pre-K. He was sick multiple
times while wearing the required masks. He missed the last week of school with severe
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (“R.S.V.”) from wearing masks. Furthermore, JOHN DOE 3 has a
speech delay and cannot voice his refusal of a mask. Mr. and Mrs. Schmitt have sent JOHN
DOE 3 to school with a note on his backpack informing School District employees of his right
under Florida law to not wear a mask and to contact Mrs. Schmitt if they have an issue with that.
Mr. and Mrs. Schmitt have also taught him to say “No mask, call mommy” when he is offered
a mask – something that is nonetheless difficult for him to communicate due to his speech delay.
Despite this, JOHN DOE 3 returns home from school every day with a mask on. As a result of
the School District’s Facial Covering Mandate and his school’s compliance with that mandate –
both in defiance of Fla. Const. Art. I § 23, the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2 – JOHN
DOE 3 cannot attend school without being subject to this outrageous conduct from School
District employees.
21. Mr. and Mrs. Schmitt have not been offered any virtual or recorded instruction for JOHN
DOE 3.
the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As parents, Mr. and Mrs. Schmitt have a
fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their son. JOHN DOE 3 has a
fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes the Defendant from forcing him to
wear a mask at school. His parents can invoke that right on his behalf. Mr. and Mrs. Schmitt and
JOHN DOE seek to vindicate their rights. The Defendant’s actions directly, substantially, and
unjustifiably interfere with those rights.
13
23. Plaintiffs GARETH BRADLEY and AMANDA BRADLEY are residents of Palm
Beach County. They are the parents of JOHN DOE 4 (kindergarten), who attends a public school
in the School District. Mr. and Mrs. Bradley are the primary decisionmakers for JOHN DOE 4’s
health care and education. Mr. and Mrs. Bradley and JOHN DOE 4 have been harmed by the
Facial Covering Mandate. Mr. and Mrs. Bradley bring this action on their own behalf and on
behalf of JOHN DOE 4. Mr. and Mrs. Bradley have standing to bring this claim on behalf of
their son as his parents and legal guardians.
24. JOHN DOE 4 can’t wear masks because he gets claustrophobic with them, affecting his
ability to learn and speak. JOHN DOE 4 gets facial redness and acne, causing him to constantly
touch his face. Mrs. Bradley pursued a section 504 exemption but was denied by the pediatrician
based on the pediatrician’s statement that “she isn’t writing mask letters this year.” JOHN DOE
4 has also faced progressive disciplinary action for not complying with the illegal Facial
Covering Mandate: Segregation to another room for learning; sitting in the principal’s office for
the remainder of the school day; in-school suspension; and out-of-school suspension.
25. The Bradleys provided their son’s school with an opt-out letter, asserting their parental
right to opt their son out of having his face covered at school. The School District dishonored
that letter on August 20. The School District’s elimination of the parental opt-out, its dishonor
of opt-out letters, and the school’s enforcement of the Facial Covering Mandate all violate Fla.
Const. Art. I § 23, the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As parents, the Bradleys have a
fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their son. JOHN DOE 4 has a
fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes the Defendant from forcing him to
wear a mask at school – a right which his parents can invoke on his behalf. The Bradley’s and
JOHN DOE 4 seek to vindicate their rights. The Defendant’s actions directly, substantially, and
14
26. Plaintiffs ERIK BANDY and COURTNEY BANDY are residents of Palm Beach
County. They are the parents of JOHN DOE 5 (third grade), a minor child who attended a public
school in the School District. Mr. and Mrs. Bandy are the primary decisionmakers for JOHN
DOE 5’s health care and education. Mr. and Mrs. Bandy and JOHN DOE 5 have been harmed
by the Facial Covering Mandate. Mr. and Mrs. Bandy bring this action on their own behalf and
on behalf of JOHN DOE 5. Mr. and Mrs. Bandy have standing to bring this claim on behalf of
JOHN DOE 5 as his parents and legal guardians.
27. During the 2020-2021 school year, the Bandy family struggled weekly to clear up the
dermatitis that masks caused on the face of JOHN DOE 5. JOHN DOE 5 has allergies that result
in a contact dermatitis reaction – itchy, scaly, and red rashes all around his mouth and nose.
Every time the Bandy’s got the dermatitis cleared up, it would return with a vengeance. The
masks assisted in keeping moisture around the nose and mouth. This made the rashes worse.
Any bacteria kept within that area provided opportunity for infection. When JOHN DOE 5 does
not wear masks, his face clears up, yet he is still mandated to go to school with a mask. This
unacceptably causes undue stress for the family, causes undue stress for JOHN DOE 5, and
increases the risk of infection. Additionally, JOHN DOE 5 has an IEP for speech and language.
Mandatory facial coverings at school negatively affect JOHN DOE 5’s speech and language
skills as they make it difficult for him to hear masked instructors and see the facial expressions
of masked people.
28. Mr. and Mrs. Bandy and JOHN DOE 5 were excited to begin the school year fresh with
no masks imposed on students due to the parental opt-out. Mrs. Bandy submitted an opt-out
letter to the school, asserting her parental right to opt her son out of having his face covered at
15
school. The School District dishonored that letter on August 20.
29. JOHN DOE 5’s school did not offer any virtual or recorded instruction.
30. The School District’s last-minute repeal of the parental opt-out backed the Bandys up
against a wall with no alternative choice in a reasonable amount of time. The School District
gave parents only 5 days to get a limited medical exemption, which was an unreasonably short
period of time. Moreover, JOHN DOE 5 received a referral on the third day of school and was
removed from his class for not wearing a mask. His education was thusly hindered. The School
District’s elimination of the parental opt-out, its dishonor of opt-out letters, and the school’s
enforcement of the Facial Covering Mandate all violate Fla. Const. Art. I § 23, the Parents’ Bill
of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As parents, Mr. and Mrs. Bandy have a fundamental right to direct
the education, medical care, and upbringing of their son. JOHN DOE has a fundamental
constitutional right to privacy which precludes the Defendant from forcing him to wear a mask
at school – a right which his parents can invoke on his behalf. Mr. and Mrs. Bandy and JOHN
DOE 5 seek to vindicate their rights. The Defendant’s actions directly, substantially, and
31. As a result of the School District’s elimination of the parental opt-out, Mr. and Mrs.
Bandy took JOHN DOE 5 out of public school on September 10 and homeschool him so as not
to subject him to the continued Facial Covering Mandate and further unnecessary disciplinary
measures taken against him for breathing freely without a mask.
32. Plaintiff MARISA LOCKE is a resident of Palm Beach County. She is the mother of
JOHN DOE 6 (third grade) and JOHN DOE 7 (tenth grade), minor children who attend a public
school in the School District. Mrs. Locke is the primary decisionmaker for her children’s health
care and education. Mrs. Locke and her sons have been harmed by and face harm from the Facial
16
Covering Mandate. Mrs. Locke brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of her sons.
Mrs. Locke has standing to bring this claim on behalf of her sons as their parent and legal
guardian.
33. JOHN DOE 6 has severe allergies that cause him terrible congestion. He’s on medication
for his allergies and has had two surgeries to help with his sinuses. With him already being
congested, having a mask on makes him feel like he is being suffocated. Without a mask, he
flourished during first grade and during the beginning of this school year (third grade), so much
so that he helped other students with their work. He fell behind during the last school year
(second grade). When asked why, he said that he could only think about trying to breathe. This
year, he immediately said that he does not want to go to school once he found out that he would
have to wear masks again. The night before the Facial Covering Mandate was reinstated (August
22), JOHN DOE 6 had an anxiety attack at the thought of not being able to breathe at school
starting the next day. Attached as Exhibit J is a photograph of a mask which JOHN DOE 6 wore
for one day last year. It shows how dirty masks get from an elementary school child who must
wear it for a minimum of six hours per day.
34. JOHN DOE 7 got sores on his mouth after wearing his mask for four days at school.
35. JOHN DOE 6’s and JOHN DOE 7’s schools do not provide virtual instruction or
recorded instruction.
36. Mrs. Locke provided her sons’ schools with opt-out letters, asserting her parental right
to opt her sons out of having their faces covered at school. The School District dishonored those
letters on August 20. The School District’s elimination of the parental opt-out, its dishonor of
opt-out letters, and the schools’ enforcement of the Facial Covering Mandate all violate Fla.
Const. Art. I § 23, the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As a parent, Mrs. Locke has a
17
fundamental right to direct the education, medical care, and upbringing of her sons. JOHN DOE
6 and JOHN DOE 7 have a fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes the
Defendant from forcing them to wear masks at school – right which Mrs. Locke can invoke on
their behalf. Mrs. Locke and her sons seek to vindicate their rights. The Defendant’s actions
directly, substantially, and unjustifiably interfere with those rights.
37. Plaintiff SEAN ROOK is a resident of Palm Beach County. He is the father of JOHN
DOE 8 (seventh grade) and JOHN DOE 9 (twelfth grade), minor children who attend public
schools in the School District. Mr. Rook is the primary decisionmaker for his sons’ health care
and education. Mr. Rook and his sons have been harmed by and face harm from the Facial
Covering Mandate. Mr. Rook brings this action on his own behalf and on behalf of his sons. Mr.
Rook has standing to bring this claim on behalf of his sons as their parent and legal guardian.
38. JOHN DOE 9 initially tried to follow the Facial Covering Mandate, despite retaining
misgivings as to its legitimacy, especially after his track coach and sixth-period teacher informed
him of the rule change. After three days, he had had enough, could no longer tolerate wearing
the mask, and preferred homeschooling. JOHN DOE 8 opted to be homeschooled as soon as the
mandate was imposed. The Facial Covering Mandate drove the Rooks from a public education.
A taxpayer within the School District, Mr. Rook withdrew his sons from their schools and
enrolled them in homeschooling programs at an upfront cost of about $1,800 for the school year.
39. On August 10, Mr. Rook provided his sons’ public schools with opt-out letters, asserting
his parental right to opt his sons out of having their faces covered at school. The School District
dishonored that letter on August 20. The School District’s elimination of the parental opt-out,
its dishonor of opt-out letters, and the school’s enforcement of the Facial Covering Mandate all
violate Fla. Const. Art. I § 23, the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As a parent, Mr.
18
Rook has a fundamental right to direct the education, medical care, and upbringing of his sons.
JOHN DOE 8 and JOHN DOE 9 have a fundamental constitutional right to privacy which
precludes the Defendant from forcing them to wear masks at school – a right which Mr. Rook
can invoke on their behalf. Mr. Rook and his sons seek to vindicate their rights. The Defendant’s
actions directly, substantially, and unjustifiably interfere with those rights.
40. Plaintiffs KELVIN YU and JESSICA SZABO are residents of Palm Beach County. They
are the parents of JANE DOE 1 (third grade), a minor child who attends a public school in the
School District. Mr. Yu and Mrs. Szabo are the primary decisionmakers for JANE DOE 1’s
health care and education. Mr. Yu and Mrs. Szabo and JANE DOE 1 have been harmed by the
Facial Covering Mandate. Mr. Yu and Mrs. Szabo bring this action on their own behalf and on
behalf of their daughter. Mr. Yu and Mrs. Szabo have standing to bring this claim on behalf of
their daughter as her parents and legal guardians.
41. Mr. Yu and Mrs. Szabo believe that their daughter’s social and emotional health have
been impacted by long-term mask-wearing in her primary social setting for the last year. They
have noticed a decrease in her overall expressiveness. JANE DOE 1 has already had and
recovered from COVID-19, and she and her parents are not at high risk of getting COVID-19.
Furthermore, JANE DOE 1 has been going to the bathroom not just to go to the bathroom, but
also just to have a minute to breathe.
42. JANE DOE 1’s school does not provide virtual instruction.
43. Mr. Yu and Mrs. Szabo provided their daughter’s school with an opt-out letter, asserting
their parental right to opt their daughter out of having her face covered at school. The School
District dishonored that letter on August 20. The School District’s elimination of the parental
opt-out, its dishonor of opt-out letters, and the school’s enforcement of the Facial Covering
19
Mandate all violate Fla. Const. Art. I § 23, the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As
parents, Mr. Yu and Mrs. Szabo have a fundamental constitutional right to direct the education,
medical care, and upbringing of their daughter. JANE DOE 1 has a fundamental constitutional
right to privacy which precludes the Defendant from forcing her to wear a mask at school – a
right which her parents can invoke on her behalf. Mr. Yu, Mrs. Szabo, and JANE DOE 1 seek
to vindicate their rights. The Defendant’s actions directly, substantially, and unjustifiably
interfere with those rights.
44. Plaintiff ADRIANE SEMIDEI is a resident of Palm Beach County. She is the mother
and legal guardian of JANE DOE 2 (third grade), a minor child who attended a public school in
the School District. Mrs. Semidei and JANE DOE 2 have been harmed by and face harm from
the Facial Covering Mandate. Mrs. Semidei brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf
of her daughter. Mrs. Semidei has standing to bring this claim on behalf of JANE DOE 2 as her
parent and legal guardian.
45. JANE DOE 2 experiences extreme anxiety while wearing a mask because it is difficult
for her to breathe. On August 24, the school principal informed Mrs. Semidei that she had
received a directive from the School District to begin segregating students who would not
comply with the illegal Facial Covering Mandate. An email followed from the School District
announcing the district’s plan to discipline children who attend school without facial coverings.
On August 25, JANE DOE 2 was forced to wear a mask at school by a teacher. On August 27,
the school principal told Mrs. Semidei that her daughter would be removed from instruction time
each day that she does not cover her face, with the removal period growing by 30 minutes every
day. Therefore, the punishment for JANE DOE 2 not wearing a facial covering was to
increasingly deny JANE DOE 2 an education. As a result of the School District’s Facial
20
Covering Mandate and her school’s compliance with that mandate – both in defiance of Fla.
Const. Art. I § 23, the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2 – her daughter could not attend
school without the anxiety of either being forced to cover her face or receive the disciplinary
action of no instruction time, which would cause emotional harm to her daughter and deny her
daughter an in-person education while she was in public school. Because of the Facial Covering
Mandate, Mrs. Semidei was forced to send her daughter to a private school.
46. On August 10, Mrs. Semidei sent JANE DOE 2 to school with an opt-out letter, just as
the School District had allowed her to do. In that letter, she asserted her parental right to opt her
daughter out of having her face covered at school. The School District dishonored that letter on
August 20.
the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As a parent, Mrs. Semidei has a fundamental right
to direct the education, medical care, and upbringing of her daughter. JANE DOE 2 has a
fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes the Defendant from forcing her to
wear a mask at school. Mrs. Semidei and JANE DOE 2 seek to vindicate their rights. The
Defendant’s actions directly, substantially, and unjustifiably interfere with those rights.
48. Plaintiff ALEXANDRA OLSSON is a resident of Palm Beach County. She is the mother
of JANE DOE 3 (first grade), a minor child who attends a public school in the School District.
Mrs. Olsson is the primary decisionmaker for her daughter’s health care and education. Mrs.
Olsson and JANE DOE 3 have been harmed by and face harm from the Facial Covering
Mandate. Mrs. Olsson brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of her JANE DOE 3.
Mrs. Olsson has standing to bring this claim on behalf of JANE DOE 3 as her parent and legal
21
guardian.
49. During the 2020-2021 school year, masks caused JANE DOE 3 rashes, headaches, and
dental problems brought on by the stagnant bacteria in her mouth from the masks. Masks also
caused JANE DOE 3 anxiety, panic attacks, claustrophobia, and learning difficulties (since she
could not be understood by her peers and teachers through the mask). She also suffered such
problems with her confidence that she had to meet with the school counselor once per week.
50. On August 7, Mrs. Olson submitted a parental opt-out form, which the school accepted.
Until the School District dishonored the opt-out letter on August 20, JANE DOE 3 flourished in
school due to not having to wear a mask and came home from school gleaming. After the School
District repealed the parental opt-out option, JANE DOE 3 was harassed by her teachers into
wearing masks against her will. She was told that she would be placed in an isolation room
without any teacher, any education, or anything to do if she didn’t wear a mask. JANE DOE 3
is reluctantly wearing masks to school against her will, causing her harm once again. She is not
thriving in school and is no longer eager to learn in school because of the Facial Covering
Mandate. As a result of the School District’s Facial Covering Mandate and her school’s
compliance with that mandate – both in defiance of Fla. Const. Art. I § 23, the Parents’ Bill of
Rights, and DOH Rule 2 – JANE DOE 3 cannot attend school without the anxiety of either being
forced to wear a mask or receive the aforementioned disciplinary action.
the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As a parent, Mrs. Olsson has a fundamental
constitutional right to direct the education, medical care, and upbringing of her daughter. JANE
DOE 3 has a fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes the Defendant from
22
forcing her to wear a mask at school – right which Mrs. Olsson can invoke on her behalf. Mrs.
Olsson and JANE DOE 3 seek to vindicate their rights. The Defendant’s actions directly,
substantially, and unjustifiably interfere with those rights.
52. Plaintiff ANORA PYATIGORSKAYA is a resident of Palm Beach County. She is the
mother of JOHN DOE 10 (kindergarten) and JANE DOE 4 (fourth grade), minor children who
attend public school in the School District. Mrs. Pyatigorskaya is the primary decisionmaker for
her children’s health care and education. Mrs. Pyatigorskaya and her children have been harmed
by and face harm from the Facial Covering Mandate. Mrs. Pyatigorskaya brings this action on
her own behalf and on behalf of her children. Mrs. Pyatigorskaya has standing to bring this claim
on behalf of her children as their parent and legal guardian.
53. While wearing masks last year, JANE DOE 4 suffered sore throats and fever many times
and missed many school days as a result. This had not happened before. Mrs. Pyatigorskaya
submitted an opt-out letter which the School District dishonored on August 20. As a result of
the School District’s Facial Covering Mandate and her school’s compliance with that mandate
– both in defiance of Fla. Const. Art. I § 23, the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2 – JANE
DOE 4 cannot attend school without once again risking experiencing the aforementioned
physical ailments while wearing a mask.
54. JOHN DOE 10 (kindergarten) needs to see his teacher’s face and the faces of his peers
to develop social, language, and communication skills.
55. Mrs. Pyatigorskaya is concerned about her children’s physical and mental health when
they are required to cover their faces for an entire school day, and about her children’s ability to
learn when the mouths of their teachers and peers are muffled by a facial covering.
23
the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As a parent, Mrs. Pyatigorskaya has a fundamental
constitutional right to direct the education and upbringing of her children. JANE DOE 4 and
JOHN DOE 10 have a fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes the
Defendant from forcing them to wear a mask at school – a right which Mrs. Pyatigorskaya can
invoke on their behalf. Mrs. Pyatigorskaya and her children seek to vindicate their rights. The
57. Plaintiff ASHLEY POULETTE is a resident of Palm Beach County. She is the mother
of JANE DOE 5 (fifth grade) and JOHN DOE 11 (ninth grade), minor children who attend a
public school in the School District. Mrs. Poulette and her children have been harmed by the
Facial Covering Mandate. Mrs. Poulette is the primary decisionmaker for her children’s health
care and education. Mrs. Poulette and her children have been harmed by the Facial Covering
Mandate. Mrs. Poulette brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of her children. Mrs.
Poulette has standing to bring this claim on behalf of her children as their parent and legal
guardian.
58. Mrs. Poulette submitted opt-out letters for both of her children, which the School District
dishonored on August 20. However, her children have been harmed by the Facial Covering
Mandate and its enforcement since the beginning of the school year. JOHN DOE 11 rides the
R023 bus home. Even when the School District honored the opt-out letter, the bus driver forced
him to the back of the bus for being unmasked even though JOHN DOE 11’s stop is the second
stop. JANE DOE 5 was put into quarantine for being maskless. There was no virtual education
option for her and she lost five full days of instruction due to the arbitrary quarantine policy.
Both children suffer when they cover their faces because they cannot breathe or see properly.
24
Both wear glasses which fog when their mouths and noses are covered. Both children have
suffered emotionally by being forced to cover their faces. As a result of the School District’s
Facial Covering Mandate and their schools’ compliance with that mandate – all in defiance of
Fla. Const. Art. I § 23, the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2 – JOHN DOE and JANE
DOE cannot attend school without being subject to this outrageous conduct from District
employees.
59. As previously mentioned, Mrs. Poulette submitted opt-out letters, asserting her parental
right to opt her children out of having their faces covered at school. The School District
dishonored those letters on August 20.
the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As a parent, Mrs. Poulette has a fundamental
constitutional right to direct the education, medical care, and upbringing of her children. JANE
DOE 5 and JOHN DOE 11 have a fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes
the Defendant from forcing them to wear masks at school – a right which Mrs. Poulette can
invoke on their behalf. Mrs. Poulette and her children seek to vindicate their rights. The
61. Plaintiff CHELSEA PACKARD is a resident of Palm Beach County. She is the mother
of JANE DOE 6 (first grade), a minor child who attended a public school in the School District.
Mrs. Packard is the primary decisionmaker for JANE DOE 6’s health care and education. Mrs.
Packard and JANE DOE 6 have been harmed by the Facial Covering Mandate. Mrs. Packard
brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of JANE DOE 6. Mrs. Packard has standing
to bring this claim on behalf of JANE DOE 6 as her parent and legal guardian.
25
62. Mrs. Packard is also a licensed clinical social worker (LCSW), so she is qualified as
both a parent and a professional to identify the clinical and sub-clinical harms suffered by her
daughter as a result of the Facial Covering Mandate.
63. JANE DOE 6 is identified as a gifted learner, qualifying for an Individualized Learning
Program designed for her to achieve her academic potential. However, she could not effectively
engage with other students or learn at her ability while she had in-person education at her
elementary school because of social distancing and facial covering rules. Mandatory facial
coverings at school put a barrier to learning for the gifted JANE DOE 6 because hearing
instruction was difficult while the instructor was wearing a mask. Mandatory facial coverings
also caused JANE DOE 6 unnecessary anxiety over potential disciplinary action for not wearing
a mask properly, even during recess when she should have been able to relax and play.
Mandatory facial coverings subjected JANE DOE 6 to unnecessary mental stress as she fears
wearing a mask because it makes it difficult for her to breathe.
64. On August 17, Mrs. Packard sent her daughter to school with a signed opt-out letter,
asserting her parental right to opt her daughter out of having her face covered at school. The
School District dishonored that letter on August 20.
the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As a parent, Mrs. Packard has a fundamental
constitutional right to direct the education and upbringing of her daughter. JANE DOE 6 has a
fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes the Defendant from forcing her to
wear a mask at school – a right which Mrs. Packard can invoke on her behalf. Mrs. Packard and
JANE DOE 6 seek to vindicate their rights. The Defendant’s actions directly, substantially, and
26
66. As a result of the School District’s elimination of the parental opt-out, Mrs. Packard took
JANE DOE 6 out of school and homeschools her as of August 20, 2021, so as not to subject
JANE DOE 6 to the continued Facial Covering Mandate and potential unnecessary disciplinary
measures taken for her to have the right to breathe freely without a mask.
67. Plaintiff DEANNA HREHOROVICH is a resident of Palm Beach County. She is the
mother of JOHN DOE 12 (second grade) and JOHN DOE 13 (fifth grade), both of whom attend
a public school in the School District. Mrs. Hrehorovich is the primary decisionmaker for her
sons’ health care and education. Mrs. Hrehorovich and her sons have been harmed by the Facial
Covering Mandate. Mrs. Hrehorovich brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of her
sons. Mrs. Hrehorovich has standing to bring this claim on behalf of her sons as their parent and
legal guardian.
68. JOHN DOE 12 has difficulty breathing while his face is covered at school and
demonstrates anxiety over wearing masks. JOHN DOE 12 also plays competitive ice hockey
and Mrs. Hrehorovich is concerned that the masks are causing a lack of oxygen which affects
JOHN DOE 12’s health.
69. Mrs. Hrehorovich is concerned over her sons’ health when their mouths and noses are
covered throughout the day. Her sons have also developed a fear of their teachers and the school
administrators because of potential discipline that could be imposed on them for not covering
their faces at school.
70. Mrs. Hrehorovich’s sons’ school does not offer virtual instruction.
71. Mrs. Hrehorovich emailed the School District an opt-out form asserting her parental right
to opt her sons out of having their faces covered at school. The School District dishonored that
27
e-mail on August 20.
the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As a parent, Mrs. Hrehorovich has a fundamental
right to direct the education and upbringing of her sons, and she seeks to vindicate that right.
JOHN DOE 12 and JOHN DOE 13 have a fundamental constitutional right to privacy which
precludes the Defendant from forcing them to wear masks at school – a right which Mrs.
Hrehorovich can invoke on their behalf. Mrs. Hrehorovich and her sons seek to vindicate their
rights. The Defendant’s actions directly, substantially, and unjustifiably interfere with those
rights.
73. Plaintiff DIANE MANALI is a resident of Palm Beach County. She is the mother of
JANE DOE 7 (first grade), a minor who attends a public school in the School District. Mrs.
Manali is the primary decisionmaker for JANE DOE 7’s health care and education. Mrs. Manali
and JANE DOE 7 have been harmed by the Facial Covering Mandate. Mrs. Manali brings this
action on her own behalf and on behalf of JANE DOE 7. Mrs. Manali has standing to bring this
action on behalf of her daughter as her parent and legal guardian.
74. JANE DOE 7 suffered from being forced to cover her mouth and nose during the 2020-
2021 school year, developing a bacterial throat infection that lasted upwards of four weeks and
was resistant to two different antibiotics. She also experienced sinus infections. JANE DOE 7
has suffered emotional harm over the Facial Covering Mandate as the social community amongst
students has been destroyed. Classmates pressure her, telling her to pull up her mask over her
nose or to put on her mask. She has become so embarrassed and upset that she is now asking for
a mask because she does not want to be questioned or told what to do by her fellow classmates.
28
She was bullied into compliance. Mrs. Manali has endured unnecessary stress because the
School District and the school deliberately ignore her parental rights.
75. JANE DOE 7’s school does not offer virtual instruction.
76. On August 10, Mrs. Manali provided her daughter’s school an opt-out letter, asserting
her parental right to opt her daughter out of having her face covered at school. The School
District dishonored that letter on August 20. The School District’s repeal of the parental opt-out,
violate Fla. Const. Art. I § 23, the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As a parent, Mrs.
Manali has a fundamental constitutional right to direct the education and upbringing of her
daughter. JANE DOE 7 has a fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes the
Defendant from forcing her to wear a mask at school – a right which Mrs. Manali can invoke on
her behalf. Mrs. Manali and JANE DOE 7 seek to vindicate their rights. The Defendant’s actions
directly, substantially, and unjustifiably interfere with those rights.
77. Plaintiff ESTHER MAY SCIGLIANO is a resident of Palm Beach County. She is the
mother of JANE DOE 8 (tenth grade), a minor child who attends a public school in the School
District. Mrs. Scigliano is the primary decisionmaker for JANE DOE 8’s health care and
education. Mrs. Scigliano and JANE DOE 8 have been harmed by the Facial Covering Mandate.
Mrs. Scigliano brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of JANE DOE 8. Mrs.
Scigliano has standing to bring this action on behalf of her daughter as her parent and legal
guardian.
78. JANE DOE 8 suffers physically from being forced to cover her mouth and nose,
becoming faint and dizzy. JANE DOE 8 suffers academically from being forced to cover her
mouth and nose, finding it difficult to concentrate in class at her fullest potential for the first
29
time in her accomplished academic career as a sophomore who qualifies for four college level
courses. JANE DOE 8 has suffered mental harm from the social and emotional trauma of the
oppressive school environment over the Facial Covering Mandate. Mrs. Scigliano is concerned
about the potential for infection while her child is forced to cover her mouth and nose at school.
Her daughter’s high school does not provide virtual learning opportunities.
79. Mrs. Scigliano provided her daughter’s school an opt-out letter, asserting her parental
right to opt her daughter out of having her face covered at school. The School District dishonored
that letter on August 20. The School District’s elimination of the parental opt-out, its dishonor
of opt-out letters, and the school’s enforcement of the Facial Covering Mandate all violate Fla.
Const. Art. I § 23, the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As a parent, Mrs. Scigliano has
a fundamental right to direct the education, medical care, and upbringing of her daughter. JANE
DOE 8 has a fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes the Defendant from
forcing her to wear a mask at school – a right which Mrs. Scigliano can invoke on her behalf.
Mrs. Scigliano and JANE DOE 8 seek to vindicate their rights. The Defendant’s actions directly,
80. Plaintiff JAMIE GRALA is a resident of Palm Beach County. She is the mother of JOHN
DOE 14 (fifth grade) and JOHN DOE 15 (eleventh grade), minor children who attend a public
school in the School District. Mrs. Grala is the primary decisionmaker for her sons’ health care
and education. Mrs. Grala and her sons have been harmed by the Facial Covering Mandate. Mrs.
Grala brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of her sons. Mrs. Grala has standing to
bring this claim on behalf of her sons as their parent and legal guardian.
81. JOHN DOE 15 has been pulled out of class and isolated in a room without a teacher or
class instruction for not covering his face, which denied him education in the process. JOHN
30
DOE 14 fears confrontation from the school staff and administrators for not properly covering
his face. He has been pulled from class and isolated. He has been made to eat lunch alone and
was told by school administrators that he would be pulled from safety patrol if he doesn’t wear
a mask. Both sons have 504 plans and their doctor refuses to fill out a form to get them out of
masks. Both sons have anxiety, and the masks make it worse.
82. JOHN DOE 14’s and JOHN DOE 15’s schools do not offer virtual instruction.
83. Mrs. Grala provided her sons’ schools with an opt-out letter, asserting her parental right
to opt her sons out of having their faces covered at school. The School District dishonored that
letter on August 20. The School District’s elimination of the parental opt-out, its dishonor of
opt-out letters, and the schools’ enforcement of the Facial Covering Mandate all violate Fla.
Const. Art. I § 23, the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As a parent, Mrs. Grala has a
fundamental constitutional right to direct the education, medical care, and upbringing of her
sons. JOHN DOE 14 and JOHN DOE 15 have a fundamental constitutional right to privacy
which precludes the Defendant from forcing them to wear masks at school – a right which Mrs.
Grala can invoke on their behalf. Mrs. Grala and her sons seek to vindicate their rights. The
84. Plaintiff JESSICA MARTINEZ is a resident of Palm Beach County. She is the mother
of JANE DOE 9 (tenth grade) and JOHN DOE 16 (eleventh grade), minor children who attend
a public school in the School District. Mrs. Martinez is the primary decisionmaker for her
children’s health care and education. Mrs. Martinez and her children have been harmed by and
face harm from the Facial Covering Mandate. Mrs. Martinez brings this action on her own behalf
and on behalf of her children. Mrs. Martinez has standing to bring this claim on behalf of her
children as their parent and legal guardian.
31
85. JOHN DOE 16 has ADHD and anxiety. During the last school year, he often stayed at
home two days or more per week because he could not handle wearing a mask all day. The
masks created anxiety and he would overheat. Teachers constantly berated him to pull his mask
up; this led to the school administration trying to prevent him from being on campus.
Additionally, Mrs. Martinez’s children’s high school starts each school day with morning
announcements which threaten students with severe disciplinary actions if masks are not worn.
Punishment includes, but is not limited to, removal from class instruction, removal from extra-
curricular activities, and suspension as a permanent mark on their academic records.
86. On August 10, Mrs. Martinez provided her children’s school with an opt-out letter,
asserting her parental right to opt her children out of having their faces covered at school. The
School District dishonored that letter on August 20. The School District’s elimination of the
parental opt-out, its dishonor of opt-out letters, and the school’s enforcement of the Facial
Covering Mandate all violate Fla. Const. Art. I § 23, the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule
2. As a parent, Mrs. Martinez has a fundamental constitutional right to direct the education and
upbringing of her children. JANE DOE 9 and JOHN DOE 16 have a fundamental constitutional
right to privacy which precludes the Defendant from forcing them to wear masks at school. Mrs.
Martinez and her children seek to vindicate their rights. The Defendant’s actions directly,
87. Plaintiff JILL SANTAGATA is a resident of Palm Beach County. She is the mother of
JOHN DOE 17, a minor child who attends a public school in the School District. Mrs. Santagata
is the primary decisionmaker for JOHN DOE 17’s health care and education. Mrs. Santagata
and JOHN DOE 17 have been harmed by and face harm from the Facial Covering Mandate.
Mrs. Santagata brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of JOHN DOE 17. Mrs.
32
Santagata has standing to bring this claim on behalf of JOHN DOE 17 as his parent and legal
guardian.
88. JOHN DOE 17 has been persistently harassed by a classmate for not wearing a mask.
Moreover, the school principal has threatened JOHN DOE 17 with detention, suspension, and
expulsion if he does not wear a mask.
89. Mrs. Santagata provided her son’s school with an opt-out letter, asserting her parental
right to opt her son out of having his face covered at school. The School District dishonored that
letter on August 20. The School District’s elimination of the parental opt-out, its dishonor of
opt-out letters, and the school’s enforcement of the Facial Covering Mandate all violate Fla.
Const. Art. I § 23, the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As a parent, Mrs. Santagata has
a fundamental constitutional right to direct the education, medical care, and upbringing of her
son. JOHN DOE 17 has a fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes the
Defendant from forcing him to wear masks at school – a right which Mrs. Santagata can invoke
on his behalf. Mrs. Santagata and JOHN DOE 17 seek to vindicate their rights. The Defendant’s
90. Plaintiff KARLA MILLAN is a resident of Palm Beach County. She is the mother of
JOHN DOE 18 (first grade), a minor child who attends a public school in the School District.
Mrs. Millan is the primary decisionmaker for JOHN DOE 18’s health care and education. Mrs.
Millan and JOHN DOE 18 have been harmed by and face harm from the Facial Covering
Mandate. Mrs. Millan brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of JOHN DOE 18.
Mrs. Millan has standing to bring this claim on behalf of JOHN DOE 18 as his parent and legal
guardian.
91. JOHN DOE 18 needs to see a teacher’s face and the faces of peers to develop social,
33
language, and communication skills. Mrs. Millan is concerned about JOHN DOE 18’s ability to
learn when the mouths of teachers and peers are muffled by a facial covering. She is also
concerned about JOHN DOE 18’s physical and mental health when he is required to cover his
face for an entire school day.
the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As a parent, Mrs. Millan has a fundamental
constitutional right to direct the education, medical care, and upbringing of her son. JOHN DOE
18 has a fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes the Defendant from forcing
him to wear a mask at school – a right which Mrs. Millan can invoke on his behalf. Mrs. Millan
and JOHN DOE 18 seek to vindicate their rights. The Defendant’s actions directly, substantially,
and unjustifiably interfere with those rights.
93. Plaintiff KIM SAVINO is a resident of Palm Beach County. She is the mother of JANE
DOE 10 (fourth grade), JOHN DOE 19 (ninth grade), and JANE DOE 11 (eleventh grade),
minor children who attend a public school in the School District. Mrs. Savino is the primary
decisionmaker for her children’s health care and education. Mrs. Savino and her children have
been harmed by and face harm from the Facial Covering Mandate. Mrs. Savino brings this action
on her own behalf and on behalf of her children. Mrs. Savino has standing to bring this action
on behalf of her children as their parent and legal guardian.
94. Her children have been pulled out of class several times and even given disciplinary
referrals and suspended from school. JANE DOE 10 (fourth grade) has received at least two
referrals for opting out, an in-school suspension, and an out-of-school suspension. She gets
headaches every time that she wears a mask. Since a headache can be a symptom of COVID-
34
19, JANE DOE 10 would need a COVID-19 test every time she goes to the nurse for her
headaches. Mrs. Savino has explained her reasons and attempted to explain herself to the school,
but the school has simply replied (in person always) that they are following school board policy.
Mrs. Savino has explained to the school principal that masking is a medical decision that she
has made for her child. She has even explained how unsanitary masks are to children after a full
day in school. All to no avail.
95. JOHN DOE 19 (ninth grade) has anxiety, and masks cause him more stress and anxiety.
He struggles to breathe while wearing a mask. He constantly was harassed by teachers last year
when he would need to take his mask off to breathe. This school year, a teacher told JOHN DOE
19 that she could die because of him! That teacher has tried to make him feel guilty and tried to
shame him into wearing a mask. He has been isolated in the classroom, bullied, and shunned by
his teacher. To date, he has suffered two days of in-school suspension (“ISS”) and has been
pulled from class several times because teachers had concerns about the type of mask he was
wearing.
96. JANE DOE 11 (eleventh grade) has been pulled out of class at least four times. She has
been cornered and questioned by a teacher multiple times. She explained that she will not wear
a mask as she has a sensory issue with things touching her neck and face. Additionally, she locks
her jaw up when she has a mask on to keep it from touching her neck or face, which has caused
her long-term jaw pain since last year. Mrs. Savino has been told that JANE DOE 11 would be
put in an in-school suspension. JANE DOE 11 is living every day in fear that she will suddenly
be removed from class participation and put into the isolation room.
97. To date, JANE DOE 10 has suffered an in-school suspension (“ISS”), an out-of-school
suspension (“OSS”), and two disciplinary referrals for not wearing a mask to school. Mrs.
35
Savino now sends her to school wearing a mask out of fear of more referrals on her record.
98. On the first day of school, Mrs. Savino provided her children’s school with an opt-out
letter, asserting her parental right to opt her children out of having their faces covered at school.
The School District dishonored that letter on August 20. The School District’s elimination of
the parental opt-out, its dishonor of opt-out letters, and the school’s enforcement of the Facial
2. As a parent, Mrs. Savino has a fundamental constitutional right to direct the education,
medical care, and upbringing of her children. JANE DOE 10, JOHN DOE 19, and JANE DOE
11 have a fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes the Defendant from
forcing them to wear masks at school – a right which Mrs. Savino can invoke on their behalf.
Mrs. Savino and her children seek to vindicate their rights. The Defendant’s actions directly,
99. Plaintiff ANA KAUFMANN is a resident of Palm Beach County. She is the mother of
JANE DOE 12 (first grade) and JANE DOE 13 (third grade), minor children who attend a public
school in the School District. Mrs. Kaufmann and her daughters have been harmed by and face
harm from the Facial Covering Mandate. Mrs. Kaufmann brings this action on her own behalf
and on behalf of her daughters. Mrs. Kaufmann has standing to bring this action on behalf of
her daughters as their parent and legal guardian.
100. JANE DOE 13 has an Individualized Education Plan (“IEP”) and a 504 plan. She suffers
panic attacks when required to cover her face.
101. Mrs. Kaufmann provided her daughters’ school with an opt-out letter, asserting her
parental right to opt her daughters out of having their faces covered at school. The School
District dishonored that letter on August 20.
36
the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As a parent, Mrs. Kaufmann has a fundamental
constitutional right to direct the education, medical care, and upbringing of her daughters. JANE
DOE 12 and JANE DOE 13 have a fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes
the Defendant from forcing them to wear masks at school – a right which Mrs. Kaufmann can
invoke on their behalf. Mrs. Kaufmann and her daughters seek to vindicate their rights. The
103. Plaintiff LISA RUSSO is a resident of Palm Beach County. She is the mother of JOHN
DOE 20 (third grade), JANE DOE 14 (seventh grade), and JOHN DOE 21 (ninth grade), minor
children who attend a public school in the School District. Mrs. Russo is the primary
decisionmaker for her children’s health care and education. Mrs. Russo and her children have
been harmed by and face harm from the Facial Covering Mandate. Mrs. Russo brings this action
on her own behalf and on behalf of her children. Mrs. Russo has standing to bring this action on
behalf of her children as their parent and legal guardian.
104. JOHN DOE 20 (third grade) has endured physical and emotional suffering as a result of
facial covering mandates. Masks cause him frequent headaches, chest pain, shortness of breath,
and feelings of being “light.” He becomes weak and sleepy while wearing a mask. His glasses
fog while wearing a mask, increasing the risk of injury from falling, especially on school
stairways. He is afraid to lower his mask during school lunch time in order to eat. Facial covering
mandates cause him to not accept his appearance without covering his face.
105. JANE DOE 14 (seventh grade) developed anxiety when masks became mandatory at her
middle school. She began to have frequent shortness of breath, irregular heartbeats, and recurrent
37
headaches. Bloody noses became common. She suffered a panic attack at school that almost
went unnoticed because her emotion could not be seen through the mask.
106. JOHN DOE 21 (ninth grade) suffers dermatological reactions while wearing masks,
including a painful cyst on his nose that recurs each time he wears a mask. Covering his mouth
and face causes him breathing difficulties, crushing chest pain, frequent headaches, and lethargy.
107. Mrs. Russo’s children suffer academically from being forced to cover their faces at
school. They no longer participate in class discussion because it is difficult to be understood.
108. Mrs. Russo’s children endure fear and stress over potential discipline for not wearing a
mask properly.
109. Mrs. Russo’s children suffer socially and emotionally because of the Facial Covering
Mandate. The school dynamic over facial covering has changed the dynamic of their school
environment. Stomach aches and nausea amongst her three children have become a daily
occurrence.
110. On August 10, 2021, Mrs. Russo provided her children’s school with an opt-out letter,
asserting her parental right to opt her children out of having their faces covered at school. The
School District dishonored that letter on August 20. The School District’s elimination of the
parental opt-out, its dishonor of opt-out letters, and the school’s enforcement of the Facial
2. As a parent, Mrs. Russo has a fundamental constitutional right to direct the education, medical
care, and upbringing of her children. JOHN DOE 20, JANE DOE 14, and JOHN DOE 21 have
a fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes the Defendant from forcing them
to wear masks at school – a right which Mrs. Russo can invoke on their behalf. Mrs. Russo and
her children seek to vindicate their rights. The Defendant’s actions directly, substantially, and
38
111. Due to the School District’s unlawful Facial Covering Mandate, Mrs. Russo has since
removed JOHN DOE 21 (ninth grade) from public school.
112. Plaintiff MARTHA ROGGE is a resident of Palm Beach County. She is the mother of
JOHN DOE 22, a minor child who attends a public school in the School District. Mrs. Rogge is
the primary decisionmaker for JOHN DOE 22’s health care and education. Mrs. Rogge and
JOHN DOE 22 have been harmed by and face harm from the Facial Covering Mandate. Mrs.
Rogge brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of JOHN DOE 22. Mrs. Rogge has
standing to bring this action on behalf of JOHN DOE 22 as his parent and legal guardian.
113. Mrs. Rogge and her husband decided to opt JOHN DOE 22 out of wearing a mask at
school because he has medical issues which make it dangerous for him to cover his face for
extended periods. Specifically, JOHN DOE 22 suffers from stomach ulcers, a heart murmur, and
recurring allergies. Based on his lab results, his treating physician, a cardiologist, and an allergist
all concurred that JOHN DOE 22 should have a medical exception to facial covering mandates.
114. Mrs. Rogge provided JOHN DOE 22’s school with an opt-out letter, asserting her
parental right to opt her son out of having his face covered at school. The School District
Rogge has a fundamental constitutional right to direct the education and upbringing of JOHN
DOE 22. JOHN DOE 22 has a fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes the
Defendant from forcing him to wear a mask at school – a right which Mrs. Rogge can invoke on
his behalf. Mrs. Rogge and JOHN DOE 22 seek to vindicate their rights. The Defendant’s
39
115. Plaintiff NICOLE WALKER is a resident of Palm Beach County. She is the mother of
JANE DOE 15 (second grade), a minor child who attends a public school in the School District.
Mrs. Walker is the primary decisionmaker for her daughter’s health care and education. Mrs.
Walker and JANE DOE 15 have been harmed by and face harm from the Facial Covering
Mandate. Mrs. Walker brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of JANE DOE 15.
Mrs. Walker has standing to bring this action on behalf of JANE DOE 15 as her parent and legal
guardian.
116. On August 24, Mrs. Walker sent her daughter to school without a mask. The principal
tried to force JANE DOE 15 to wear a mask, which JANE DOE 15 refused. JANE DOE 15 is
not allowed to attend school or receive instruction until she wears a mask.
117. JANE DOE 15’s school does not offer virtual learning or recorded lessons.
118. Mrs. Walker provided JANE DOE 15’s school with an opt-out letter, asserting her
parental right to opt her daughter out of having her face covered at school. The School District
Walker has a fundamental constitutional right to direct the education, medical care, and
upbringing of her daughter. JANE DOE 15 has a fundamental constitutional right to privacy
which precludes the Defendant from forcing her to wear a mask at school – a right which Mrs.
Walker can invoke on her behalf. Mrs. Walker and JANE DOE 15 seek to vindicate their rights.
The Defendant’s actions directly, substantially, and unjustifiably interfere with those rights.
119. Plaintiffs MICHAEL LEFEBVRE and TANYA LEFEBVRE are residents of Palm
40
Beach County. They are the parents of plaintiff JANE DOE 16 (first grade), a minor child who
attends a charter school in the School District. Mr. and Mrs. Lefebvre are the primary
decisionmakers for their daughter’s health care and education. Mr. and Mrs. Lefebvre and JANE
DOE 16 have been harmed by and face harm from the Facial Covering Mandate. Mr. and Mrs.
Lefebvre bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of JANE DOE 16. Mr. and Mrs.
Lefebvre have standing to bring this claim on behalf of JANE DOE 16 as her parents and legal
guardians.
120. Mr. and Mrs. Lefebvre received a letter from the principal of JANE DOE 16’s charter
school, informing them that all students must either wear a facial covering, complete their
assignments at home, or be enrolled elsewhere. On August 30, Mrs. Lefebvre responded with
an email to the charter school, asserting that her daughter would attend school without a mask
and asserting her rights and her daughter’s rights under the law.
the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As parents, Mr. and Mrs. Lefebvre have a
fundamental constitutional right to direct the education, medical care, and upbringing of their
daughter. JANE DOE 16 has a fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes the
Defendant from forcing her to wear a mask at school – a right which her parents can invoke on
her behalf. Mr. and Mrs. Lefebvre and JANE DOE 16 seek to vindicate their rights. The
122. Plaintiffs PHILLIP KEVIN YOUNG, JR., and TIFFANY YOUNG are residents of Palm
Beach County. They are the parents of JANE DOE 17 (sixth grade), a minor child who attended
a public school in the School District. Mr. and Mrs. Young and their child have been harmed by
41
and face harm from the Facial Covering Mandate. Mr. and Mrs. Young bring this action on their
own behalf and on behalf of JANE DOE 17. Mr. and Mrs. Young have standing to bring this
action on behalf of JANE DOE 17 as her parents and legal guardians.
123. JANE DOE 17 has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder from a traumatic experience, making
it impossible for her to wear a mask.
124. Mr. and Mrs. Young decided to remove JANE DOE 17 from the School District during
the 2020-2021 school year because of the detriments of the mandatory facial covering and online
curriculum of virtual learning. They planned on re-enrolling JANE DOE 17 in a public school
within the School District after Governor Ron DeSantis signed EO 21-175 on July 30, 2021, and
the Florida Department of Health enacted Emergency Rule 64DER21-12 on August 6th, 2021.
125. On August 18, 2021, the School District voted to defy EO 21-175 and DOH Rule 2. In
so doing, the School District also violated Fla. Const. Art. I § 23 and the Parents’ Bill of Rights.
Mr. and Mrs. Young are forced to homeschool their child as a result of the School District’s
unlawful Facial Covering Mandate.
the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As parents, Mr. and Mrs. Young have a
fundamental constitutional right to direct the education, medical care, and upbringing of JANE
DOE 17. JANE DOE 17 has a fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes the
Defendant from forcing her to wear a mask at school – a right which her parents can invoke on
her behalf. Mr. and Mrs. Young and JANE DOE 17 seek to vindicate their rights. The
127. Plaintiffs FRANK ANTONUCCI and TRACY ANTONUCCI are residents of Palm
42
Beach County. They are the parents of JOHN DOE 23 (second grade), a minor child who attends
a public school in the School District. Mr. and Mrs. Antonucci and JOHN DOE 23 have been
harmed by and face harm from the Facial Covering Mandate. Mr. and Mrs. Antonucci bring this
action on their own behalf and on behalf of JOHN DOE 23. Mr. and Mrs. Antonucci have
standing to bring this action on behalf of JOHN DOE 23 as his parents and legal guardians.
128. JOHN DOE 23 suffered during the 2020-2021 school year because he could not breathe
properly while wearing a mandatory facial covering at school. Specifically, he complained of
feeling sick and of not being able to breathe properly. During the last school year, he was told
that he had to wear a mask outdoors during play time and recess with temperatures over 90
degrees. The only time the mask was allowed off was during lunch for less than 30 minutes of
a 6-and-½-hour-long school day.
129. Mr. and Mrs. Antonucci received an email from the school threatening their son with
punishment, such as in-school-suspension and/or isolation in a holding room, if their son did not
cover his face at school. Such a punishment would deny their son an education.
130. JOHN DOE 23’s school does not offer virtual or recorded instruction for students.
131. On August 9, Mr. and Mrs. Antonucci provided their son’s school with an opt-out letter,
asserting their parental right to opt their son out of having his face covered at school. The School
District dishonored that letter on August 20. Mr. and Mrs. Antonucci placed an opt-out letter in
their son’s backpack as of August 23, and it was ignored. Mrs. Antonucci emailed the teacher
and the principal, stating Florida law as well as their personal health standards and decision for
their son. None of it was responded to.
43
the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As parents, Mr. and Mrs. Antonucci have a
fundamental constitutional right to direct the education, medical care, and upbringing of their
son. JOHN DOE 23 has a fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes the
Defendant from forcing him to wear a mask at school – a right which his parents can invoke on
his behalf. Mr. and Mrs. Antonucci and JOHN DOE 23 seek to vindicate their rights. The
133. Plaintiffs AMBER COSTA and CHRISTOPHER COSTA are residents of Palm Beach
County. They are the parents of JANE DOE 18 (fourth grade) and JOHN DOE 24 (fifth grade),
minor children who attend public school in the School District. Mr. and Mrs. Costa are the
primary decisionmakers for their children’s health care and education. Mr. and Mrs. Costa and
their children have been harmed by and face harm from the Facial Covering Mandate. Mr. and
Mrs. Costa bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of their children. Mr. and Mrs.
Costa have standing to bring this action on behalf of their children as their parents and legal
guardians.
134. JANE DOE 18 was punished for “tapping” kids to be on her team at recess because she
was without a facial covering.
135. JOHN DOE 24 has an IEP for speech. Mandatory facial coverings at school negatively
affect JOHN DOE 24’s speech skills as they make it difficult for him to hear masked instructors
and see the facial expressions of masked people. He had speech lessons with a therapist
throughout all the last school year with masks on.
136. Both children were isolated during lunch, being forced to eat lunch in their classrooms
instead of in the cafeteria. They were told not to speak in class for months. They did not see
anyone’s face for an entire school year, even at recess. They were reprimanded for not wearing
44
their facial coverings properly.
137. Mrs. Costa had sent an opt-out letter to the school stating that she would not place facial
coverings on her children and asking the school to agree to not bully, punish, or shame her
children for being without facial coverings.
the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As parents, Mr. and Mrs. Costa have a fundamental
constitutional right to direct the education, medical care, and upbringing of their children. JANE
DOE 18 and JOHN DOE 24 have a fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes
the Defendant from forcing them to wear facial coverings at school – a right which their parents
can invoke on their behalf. Mr. and Mrs. Costa and their children seek to vindicate their rights.
The Defendant’s actions directly, substantially, and unjustifiably interfere with those rights.
139. Plaintiff MICHAEL LEONE is a resident of Palm Beach County. He is the father of
JOHN DOE 25 (kindergarten), a minor child who attends public school in the School District.
Mr. Leone is the primary decisionmaker for his son’s health care and education. Mr. Leone and
JOHN DOE 25 have been harmed by and face harm from the Facial Covering Mandate. Mr.
Leone brings this action on his own behalf and on behalf of JOHN DOE 25. Mr. Leone has
standing to bring this action on behalf of JOHN DOE 25 as his parent and legal guardian.
140. JOHN DOE 25 has a narrow esophagus. He develops coughing every time that he wears
a facial covering.
141. At the beginning of the school year, Mr. Leone submitted an opt-out letter to JOHN DOE
25’s elementary school. When the elementary school decided to comply with the School District
instead of with the law, Mr. Leone was forced to transfer JOHN DOE 25 to a charter school
45
within the School District which has decided to comply with the law. Mr. Leone believes that
the non-charter elementary school is academically superior to the charter school and would
prefer to return his son to the non-charter elementary school if not for that school’s compliance
with the Facial Covering Mandate.
the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2. As a parent, Mr. Leone has a fundamental
constitutional right to direct the education, medical care, and upbringing of his son. JOHN DOE
25 has a fundamental constitutional right to privacy which precludes the Defendant from forcing
him to wear facial coverings at school – a right which Mr. Leone can invoke on his behalf. Mr.
Leone and JOHN DOE 25 seek to vindicate their rights. The Defendant’s actions directly,
143. The plaintiffs whose names are disclosed are sometimes collectively referred to as the
“Parent Plaintiffs.” The Parent Plaintiffs’ minor children (all the JOHN DOEs and JANE DOEs)
are sometimes collectively hereinafter referred to as the “Minor Children Plaintiffs.”
THE DEFENDANT
144. Defendant SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY (hereinafter “School
District,” “School Board,” or “SDPBC”) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, located
in Palm Beach County, Florida, and the local board of education responsible for the
administration of the School District of Palm Beach County, the public school system for all of
Palm Beach County, Florida. The Defendant is an agency within the meaning of the term under
Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, which provides its rulemaking authority.
145. Frank A. Barbieri is the Chair of the School Board. The School Board may be served via
46
service on the Chair, or on the Superintendent (Michael J. Burke) if the Chair is unavailable.
THE MINOR CHILDREN PLAINTIFFS
146. Except where otherwise noted, the Minor Children Plaintiffs attend public schools
within Palm Beach County and are subject to, and are being harmed by, the revised Facial
Covering Mandate.
147. The Minor Children Plaintiffs have been harmed, and are continuously being harmed,
as a direct result of the proper and improper application of the Facial Covering Mandate.
148. The Minor Children Plaintiffs do not have COVID-19 and are highly unlikely to
transmit it to anyone.
149. Some of the Minor Children Plaintiffs have already had COVID-19 and are now
effectively incapable of being reinfected.
150. It is an undisputed fact that school children like the Minor Children Plaintiffs are at low
risk for acquiring a serious case of COVID-19.
151. It is an undisputed fact that students — including the Minor Children Plaintiffs —have
less risk of dying from COVID-19 than from influenza even when unmasked.
152. It is an undisputed fact that school children like the Minor Children Plaintiffs are not
the primary drivers of community spread of COVID-19.
153. It is an undisputed fact that all Palm Beach County teachers and staff have had a full
and fair opportunity to be vaccinated against COVID-19 with vaccines reported to be over
90% effective.
154. Children like the Minor Children Plaintiffs normally acquire lifelong immunities
through ordinary exposure to a wide variety of common diseases at school, including
respiratory viruses like COVID-19.
47
SDPBC’S UNLAWFUL FACIAL COVERING MANDATE AND THE EVENTS
LEADING UP TO IT.
155. On June 30, 2021, the Florida Parents’ Bill of Rights was signed into law by Florida
Governor Ron DeSantis. The new state law, codified under Chapter 1014, Florida Statutes,
protects parents’ rights related to education and health care, including the right to “direct the
education and care” of their minor children. The law became effective on July 1, 2021.
156. On August 6, 2021, the Florida Department of Health (“DOH”) enacted Emergency
Rule 64DER21-12 “Protocols for Controlling COVID19 in School Settings” (“DOH RULE
1”). DOH Rule 1 is attached as Exhibit E. DOH Rule 1 required SDPBC to provide opt-outs
for any facial covering mandates, stating, “Students may wear masks or facial coverings as a
mitigation measure; however, the school must allow for a parent or legal guardian of the
student to opt-out the student from wearing a face covering or mask.”3
157. Prior to August 18, 2021, SDPBC represented to parents and students that its facial
covering policy would require parental consent—affording an “opt out” option for parents, as
required by Florida law.
158. On July 21, 2021, during a public meeting held by the School Board prior to
commencement of the 2021-2022 Semester, Board Chairman Frank Barbieri assured the
Plaintiffs and all other parents and students in the school district that facial coverings would
not be mandatory for students stating, “I just want to make it absolutely clear that this Board is
not discussing a mandatory mask mandate for the Fall… We are not doing that.” Chair
Barbieri also claimed, “to suggest to the public that this Board is considering putting a mandate
back in for masks is the farthest thing from the truth…”4
3
https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/8.6.21-DOH-Rule.pdf
4
https://www.wflx.com/2021/07/21/pbc-schools-not-considering-fall-mask-mandate-chairman-says/
48
159. On August 7, 2021, Superintendent Burke exercised his authority as Superintendent to
amend SDPBC’s COVID-19 policies. Specifically, he brought SDPBC into compliance with
Florida law by inserting a parental opt-out into the Facial Covering Mandate. He wrote to all
parents, guardians and staff:
“On August 4, when I made the announcement that facial coverings for students
and staff would be strongly encouraged but not mandatory, that decision was
based on the Governor's Executive Order prohibiting our School District from
enforcinga student facial covering requirement.
As you may know, two major decisions, which impact Florida School Districts,
were made yesterday at the State level. The Florida Board of Education (FLDOE)
adopted emergency rules that impact the opening of our schools, specifically
student attendance and ensuring that homework will be provided to students who
are under quarantine.
Additionally, the Florida Department of Health (FLDOH) also adopted an

emergency rule that was signed by the Florida Surgeon General mandating that
parents must be given an opt-out choice if facial coverings are required by a
school district. FLDOH has also added clarity regarding the quarantining of
COVID-19 positive students. . .
After careful thought, I am exercising my authority as Superintendent to amend

the District’s COVID-19 policies. This means, effective immediately, I am
requiring facial coverings inside schools and on buses for all students attending
Palm Beach County District-operated schools, unless the student’s
parent/guardian chooses to opt-out of this requirement. In order to opt out, parents
who do not want their student wearing a facial coveringmust send a signed note
to the school informing the child’s first-period teacher of this decision.”5
160. Accordingly, the parents of over 11,000 students submitted opt-out letters.6
161. Unfortunately, SDPBC’s compliance with Florida law lasted only 11 days.
162. On August 18, 2021, the School Board held a meeting where it decided to make up its
own rules by changing its Facial Covering Mandate to intentionally violate Florida law and
5
https://www.palmbeachschools.org/news/what_s_new/august_2021/updated_facial_covering_requirements_august
_7_2021
6
https://wiod.iheart.com/featured/florida-news/content/2021-08-20-school-board-member-explains-why-she-voted-
no-to-reversing-parental-opt-out/
49
Plaintiffs’rights. SDPBC eliminated the parental opt-out. The Facial Covering Mandate now
allows exemptions only for a very limited set of medical conditions, which is insufficient
under Florida law. Under Florida law, parents do not need to go through any application
procedure to get an exemption. They must simply request an exemption and it’s theirs, no
questions asked.
163. SDPBC’s sudden and illegal about-face occurred on a Wednesday night at about 11:30
P.M., and went into effect only five days later. This left thousands of parents who had
submitted opt-outs scrambling.
164. SDPBC eliminated the parental opt-out despite its attorney’s advice at the August 18
meeting that “legally you cannot force students to wear masks.”7
165. When the School Board met to intentionally violate clearly established Florida law by
removing the opt-out option from the Facial Covering Mandate, Superintendent Burke
admitted on record that the School Board was “making up” its own rules as other members of
the School Board laughed out loud. He jested, “We say that we’re going to adhere to
different…protocols, including the Department of Health, CDC, state and local
guidelines…You may want to strike that whole paragraph at this point. We’re making up our
own rules.”8
166. SDPBC confirmed that “[o]pt-out letters previously submitted by parents and
guardians will no longer be honored” in a message posted to its website on August 20, 2021.
7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep-xqb_Rs50 (Excerpt from Defendant’s August 18, 2021, meeting where
Chair Barbieri asked, “General Counsel, we have 11,000 students that have opted out. Can you tell us what legally
can we do to force those students to put a mask on?” To which SDPBC’s General Counsel, Shawntoyia Bernard,
replied, “Well, there’s nothing legally we can do to force students to wear a mask, so that presents quite a
problem…even discipline is something that could present a problem and could present challenges as well, and legal
challenges…so, logistically, I can’t answer the question of how schools would respond to that, but it would certainly
be a legal quagmire in terms of enforcement.”)
8
Superintendent Burke’s admission is available at https://vimeo.com/589397599
50
That message is attached as Exhibit B.
167. The revision has caused great public consternation and unhappiness. It has divided
neighbor from neighbor and has created a terrifying daily burden for parents who do not want
their children’s faces to be covered.
168. There are exemptions or accommodations in the Facial Covering Mandate (including
for a plastic shield), but they “must be verified by a treating licensed medical physician as
required by the ADA, or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and agreed to by a compliant
504 Team.” Under Florida law, this is insufficient, since the Facial Covering Mandate must
have a parental opt-out as well, which is different from a medical exemption and which is
unconditional. Again, under Florida law, parents need not go through any application process
to get an exemption. All they have to do is request one and it’s theirs, no questions asked. The
legally-required opt-out is unconditional.
169. The Facial Covering Mandate does not even provide for any procedure for parents to
obtain an exemption or accommodation. For example, it does not provide what standards the
504 Team must use to agree with (or disagree with) a treating licensed medical physician’s
verification of an exemption or accommodation.
170. The Facial Covering Mandate does not provide for any form to be used to request an
exemption or accommodation.
171. On August 24, 2021, SDPBC sent an email to all parents and guardians, including the
Parent Plaintiffs, stating “As a reminder, on Wednesday August 18, 2021,the School Board
approved a policy, making facial coverings mandatory for students in District-operated
schools. This measure took effect on Monday, August 23, 2021, and principals have been
advised to direct compliance on their campuses…Students who do not adhere to the guidelines
51
created by the School Board, and detailed in the policy, will be subject to discipline as outlined
in the Student Code of Conduct: Policy 5.1812 (K-5) and Policy 5.1813 (6-12).” This email is
attached as Exhibit C.
172. SDPBC’s August 24, 2021 email, attached as Exhibit C, threatens the following
interventions and discipline for students who do not wear a facial covering:
(a) Non-compliance may include but is not limited to, the following in a
progressive order of corrective strategies:
a. Conference with student
b. Conference with parent/guardian
c. Reiterate expectations and safety/health benefits
d. Loss of privileges (during school hours)
e. Loss of extra-curricular activities
f. Temporary removal from class
g. In-school suspension
h. Out-of-school suspension.
173. On August 24, 2021, Superintendent Burke told local reporters that students who refuse
to wear masks in school may be isolated as a punishment.9
174. Outrageously, that same day, Superintendent Burke was not wearing a mask while
speaking to a large maskless crowd at an indoors “Back to School Breakfast” event.
175. During the maskless event at the Chamber of Commerce of the Palm Beaches, when
askedif there was something that could be done to help support the School District and its
students, Superintendent Burke—not wearing a mask indoors within close proximity of
9
https://www.wptv.com/rebound/state-of-education/palm-beach-county-students-who-refuse-to-wear-masks-in-
school-may-be-isolated-superintendent-says/
52
others—joked, “Yes. Send lawyers, guns and money. Please… You can hold the guns, but
lawyers and money might come in handy….”10
176. After SDPBC enacted the unlawful Facial Covering Mandate, on August 27, 2021,
DOECommissioner Richard Corcoran and the State Board of Education sent a letter to both
Superintendent Burke and Chair Barbieri stating:
This letter is sent to express my grave concern regarding your district’s

response to the recently adopted Emergency Rule 64DER21-12 from the
Florida Department of Health. This rule, issued on August 6, 2021, by the
Florida Surgeon General, Dr. Scott Rivkees, explicitly requires that any
mandated mask policy imposed by a district or school “must allow for a
parent or legal guardian of the student opt-out the student from wearing a
face covering or mask.” The emergency rule does not require parents to
submit medical documentation in order to opt-out…
The rule provides, in part, as follows: Students may wear masks or facial
coverings as a mitigation measure, however, the school must allow for a
parent or legal guardian of the student to opt-out the student from wearing
a face covering or mask.
Rule 64DER21-12(1)(d), Florida Administrative Register, Vol. 47/No.

153,August 9, 2021
Recent reports in the media indicate that the Palm Beach School Board
hastaken action inconsistent with the emergency rule by limiting or
conditioning the parental ability to opt-out of a face covering or mask
mandate. Section 1008.32, Florida Statutes, states, “The State Board of
Education shall oversee the performance of district school boards…in
enforcement of all laws and rules.” Further, section 1008.32(2)(a),
Florida Statutes, states that the “Commissioner of Education may
investigate allegations of noncompliance with law or state board rule and
determine probable cause.”
Based on this authority, I am immediately initiating an investigation into

non-compliance with the rule adopted by the Florida Department of
Health on August 6, 2021. In commencing this investigation, I am
demanding that you provide a written response by 5:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, September 1, 2021, documenting how your district is
complying with the Florida Department of Health Emergency Rule
10
“Back to School Breakfast” livestream coverage by WPTV, available at
https://www.facebook.com/WPTV5/videos/293457855881547/?extid=CL-UNK-UNK-UNK-IOS_GK0T-
GK1C&ref=sharing
53
64DER21-12. Should you fail to document full compliance with this rule,
in accordance with section 1008.32, Florida Statutes, I intend to
recommend to the State Board of Education that the Department withhold
funds in an amount equal to the salaries for all the members of the School
Board, as well as other sanctions authorized by law, until the district
comes into compliance.
Parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringings, education and

care of their minor children. The Department of Education will protect
thatright.11
177. On September 1, 2021, Superintendent Burke sent a written response to Corcoran,
stating that SDPBC has “not acted inconsistently” with the state’s emergency rule, claiming,
“With respect to Floridians' constitutional freedoms, there has been no determination that has
concluded a face-covering requirement for students is unconstitutional…Nothing in the
Parents’ Bill of Rights prohibits a face-covering requirement.”12
178. On September 1, 2021, in an opinion letter to the Suwannee County School District’s
BoardAttorney, Florida’s Attorney General indicated “it is my opinion that the District must
comply with Rule 64DER21-12 and any other applicable authorities unless and until the
judiciary declares them invalid.”13
179. On September 22, 2021, the Florida Department of Health issued Emergency Rule
64DER21-15 (“DOH Rule 2”).14 DOH Rule 2 is attached as Exhibit F. DOH Rule 2 repeals
DOH Rule 1. However, it retains the requirement that school districts give parents the option
to opt their children out of having to wear facial coverings: “Schools may adopt requirements
for students to wear masks or facial coverings as a mitigation measure; however, the school
11
https://www.wptv.com/rebound/state-of-education/state-threatens-to-withhold-palm-beach-county-school-board-
member-salaries-over-mask-mandate
12
https://www.wptv.com/rebound/state-of-education/despite-state-deadline-school-district-of-palm-beach-countys-
universal-mask-mandate-remains-in-place
13
https://www.wtxl.com/news/local-news/florida-ag-moody-tells-suwannee-school-district-comply-with-mask-
mandate-ban
14
https://floridahealthcovid19.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/64DER21-15.pdf
54
must allow for a parent or legal guardian of the student to opt the student out of wearing a face
covering or mask at the parent or legal guardian’s sole discretion.” Therefore, nothing
substantive has changed on this matter.
180. Also on September 22, 2021, the School Board held a meeting where it voted to
comply with the quarantine provision of DOH Rule 2, but it declined to end its unlawful Facial
Covering Mandate, despite the overwhelming opposition from members of the public,
including countless parents and students in the school district who testified about the harms
students have been suffering due to the Facial Covering Mandate. See Exhibit D (September
24, 2021, message posted to SDBPC’s website to parents and legal guardians stating that the
Facial Covering Mandate “remains in place.” This same message was also emailed to parents
and legal guardians the day before).
181. During the public comment period of the School Board’s September 22, 2021, meeting,
several Palm Beach County public school students testified about the irrational and harmful
Facial Covering Mandate. They included a nine-year-old girl who testified that the facial
coverings mandated by the School Board “give us rashes…and it hurts.”15
182. Another Palm Beach County student testified at that meeting. “So far, we have been
forced to wear masks for my entire time as a middle schooler. I have friends that I have never
seen their smile. I have teachers that I have never seen their faces. It’s really hard to hear
people with masks on and I can’t tell if my friends are happy or sad. I don’t feel like talking to
people much with a mask on…The masks are hot, uncomfortable, and hard to breathe and talk
with. I loved going to school, but now I hate it because of the masks. I never got in any trouble
15
SDPBC Board Meeting 9-22-21, available at the School Board’s YouTube Channel at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBzYqyZvdUM&list=PLOQqH0OHtbmP-7AMOuIJo4bZms55M0DZd, at
1:36:57.
55
before, but now I get yelled at if my mask accidently flips down…I wore a mask all through
sixth grade and now seventh. By my calculations, I’ve spent 6,300 hours in a mask in the past
year. How much longer do we kids have to be the only ones forced to wear these masks?”16
183. At the School Board’s meeting on September 22, a seven-year-old second grade
student testified that she has been and continues to be suspended repeatedly by her school in
the School District and denied her right to education for non-compliance with the Facial
Covering Mandate, stating, “I am going to get suspended if I don’t wear a mask for three more
days. Just because I get suspended for not wearing a mask is not going to change my mind.
You can keep suspending me. I still have the right not to wear a mask. It is not fair that I am
getting punished because you guys, the School Board, are not following the law. That is not
fair. It just isn’t right. I am still going to stand up for what I believe in and nothing is going to
change my mind. I’ve been getting suspended a lot…do you know how dirty masks are? You
touch the mask…you breathe all those germs in because you have lots of bacteria on your
hand…I hope you all go to jail for doing this to me.”17
184. To date, SDPBC has unlawfully refused to comply with DOH Rule 2 and dishonored
thousands of parental opt-outs, including the opt-outs submitted by the Plaintiffs.
185. SDPBC knowingly and intentionally violated the Florida Constitution, the Parents’ Bill
of Rights, and both DOH Rules.
186. If allowed to stand, the Facial Covering Mandate will not only continue to mislead
countless parents and students into believing that facial coverings can stop viruses like
COVID-19. The Facial Covering Mandate will continue to trample upon the rights of Parent
Plaintiffs, the Minor Children Plaintiffs, and approximately 11,000 other students, rights
16
Id. at 1:37:57.
17
Id. at 1:46:13
56
secured under Florida law. SDPBC and its agents will continue to inflict massive emotional
distress on students and parents across Palm Beach County. Students who do not acquiesce to
SDPBC’s unlawful mandate will be arbitrarily targeted and disciplined for exercising their
rights, including, but not limited to, being removed from classrooms and unlawfully punished
with unnecessary removals from schools, as well as in-school and out-of-school suspensions.
187. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action challenging the legality of SDPBC’s Facial
Covering Mandate and the enforcement thereof – which has deprived Plaintiffs of numerous
rights under the Florida Constitution and statutory provisions – seeking: (1) injunctive relief to
enjoin the enforcement of the Facial Covering Mandate by SDPBC; (2) declaratory relief from
this Court declaring that the Facial Covering Mandate violates Art. I § 9 of the Florida Constitution,
Art. I § 23 of the Florida Constitution, the Parents’ Bill of Rights, and DOH Rule 2; (3) Plaintiffs’
attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with this lawsuit; and (4) all further relief as the Court
deems just and appropriate.
188. There is a bona fide dispute between the parties and a need for a declaration as to the
legality of the Facial Covering Mandate and the enforcement thereof, as to which the parties
have actual, present, adverse, and antagonistic interests.
189. The facts relevant to the dispute are well-known and readily ascertainable. The
Plaintiffs are not merely seeking legal advice from the court. The Plaintiffs present an actual
dispute and have ascertainable powers, rights, and authority under the Florida Constitution.
190. Even if Defendant withdraws or modifies its unlawful Facial Covering Mandate during
the course of litigation, that will not necessarily moot this case as the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated parents and students will remain under constant threat that Defendant will
use its power to reinstate the challenged unlawful requirement. See Roman Catholic Diocese of
57
Brooklyn v. Cuomo,141 S. Ct. 63, 75 (2020) (enjoining unconstitutional COVID-19 restrictions
due to irreparable harm even though the restrictions were no longer in place by the time of the
ruling). In other words, the Facial Covering Mandate is capable of repetition yet evading
review.
191. The Facial Covering Mandate has been codified as part of SDPBC’s School Board
Policy 5.326. Specifically, it is School Board Policy 5.326(3)(a)(viii). The whole policy is
attached as Exhibit A and is available on SDPBC’s official website at the following address:
https://go.boarddocs.com/fl/palmbeach/Board.nsf/Public#
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DATA – SDPBC’S FACIAL

COVERING MANDATE DOES NOT WORK
192. SDPBC’s Facial Covering Mandate does not slow the spread of COVID-19.
193. On April 14, 2021, the Florida Department of Education (“DOE”) sent official notice
to all School District Superintendents (including the Superintendent of SDPBC), stating
unequivocally and without qualification that “the data shows us that districts’ face covering
policies do not impact the spread of the virus” (bold-face and underline emphases in the
original). A copy of the DOE’s April 14, 2021 letter (the “DOE’s Covid Guidance”) is
attached hereto as Exhibit G.
194. The DOE Chancellor compared the COVID-19 performance in 27 county school
districts having optional masking policies to the COVID-19 performance in 40 county school
districts having mandatory masking policies.
195. After reviewing the actual data, the DOE’s Chancellor concluded that “[t]he review of
this data showed no link between face mask policies and counties’ positivity rates” (emphasis
added).
196. The DOE, in conjunction with a report on Florida’s reopening from the CDC,
58
concluded that “the health data on school campuses has increasingly bested the health data in
communities at large, clearly other factors – NOT face covering policies – are driving healthy
results for Florida’s schools” (emphasis added).
197. The DOE’s Chancellor of Public Schools’ email dated Thursday May 13, 2021,
containing the DOE’s conclusions represented in paragraphs 195-197, is attached hereto as
Exhibit I.
198. SDPBC has never disputed the facts asserted in the DOE’s Covid Guidance, or the
information cited by the DOE’s Chancellor in his email.
199. It is irrational, arbitrary, and capricious for SDPBC to maintain the Facial Covering
Mandate when the undisputed facts show that the Facial Covering Mandate does not impact
the spread of the virus.
200. In other words, SDPBC’s Facial Covering Mandate is not even rationally related to its
stated objective of slowing or preventing the spread of COVID-19.
201. Facial coverings serve no remaining good at this point in Palm Beach County
schools.
202. The DOE’s Covid Guidance notified SDPBC that “broad sweeping mandatory face
covering policies serve no remaining good at this point in our schools” (bold-face and
underline emphasis in the original).
203. It is irrational, arbitrary, and capricious for SDPBC to maintain the Facial Covering
Mandate when it serves no remaining good at this point in Florida’s schools.
204. SDPBC disputes this fact only indirectly, by making vague references to remote
political agencies unconnected to Florida’s government, geography, culture, climate, and
community — and not through any rationally-based local analysis or science.
59
205. Neither the CDC nor the FDA has undertaken any analysis of the relevant data in
Florida on a county-by-county basis to determine the effectiveness of mandatory
masking of students in this State.
206. SDPBC’s Facial Covering Mandate is based, not on science or reason, but on the
irrational fears and psychological anxieties of its Superintendent and School Board Members.
207. Facial coverings generally harm students by:
(a) inhibiting peer-to-peer learning in our classrooms;
(b) creating a barrier for students and families who would otherwise choose in-person
instruction if the Facial Covering Mandate were not in place; and
(c) impeding face-to-face instruction in certain cases.
(the “General Harms”).
208. SDPBC received actual notice of the General Harms when it received the DOE’s Covid
Guidance.
209. Although SDPBC received actual notice of the General Harms, SDPBC irrationally,
arbitrarily, and capriciously failed to take any remedial action. Instead SDPBC pretends that it
did not receive notice of the General Harms and ignores them, as if by ignoring them they will
go away.
210. It is irrational, arbitrary, and capricious for SDPBC to ignore the General Harms to
children identified by the DOE.
211. SDPBC schools are safer from COVID-19 than is the community at large.
212. SDPBC schools are located in a state — Florida — that has never required mandatory
masking.
213. SDPBC has irrationally, arbitrarily, and capriciously ignored the fact that its schools
are safer from COVID-19 than the community at large.

60
214. Finally, the DOE notified SDPBC that, “we ask that districts, which are currently
implementing a mandated face covering policy, revise their policy to be voluntary for the
2021-2022 school year” (emphasis is original).
215. Rather than receive this guidance backed by scientific data, SDPBC went in the other
direction, and obstinately, irrationally, arbitrarily, and capriciously ignored the DOE’s official
request that any facial covering mandates for students should be unconditionally voluntary for
the 2021-2022 school year.
THE OTHER DATA – SDPBC’S FACIAL COVERING MANDATE DOES NOT

WORK
216. On February 27, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”)
announced that it does not recommend the use of face masks to prevent COVID-19.18
217. Coronaviruses and other viral respiratory illnesses like influenza have been known
about and studied for generations.
218. The State of Florida has never mandated facial coverings as means to stop the spread of
any disease, including influenza.
219. Scientific data and observations by many scientists throughout the world—especially
in communities where mask mandates have not stopped the spread of COVID-19—confirm
masking doesn’t stop coronaviruses.
220. On March 31, 2020, the U.S. Surgeon General indicated on national television that the
data does not support wearing masks because they are ineffective in preventing respiratory
diseases and can actually increase the risk of spreading COVID-19. (“On an individual level,
there was a study in 2015 looking at medical students and medical students wearing surgical
masks touch their face on average 23 times…We know a major way that you can get
18
https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1233134710638825473
61
respiratory diseases like coronavirus is by touching a surface and then touching your face so
wearing a mask improperly can actually increase your risk of getting disease. It can also
give you a false sense of security.”).19
221. On June 8, 2020, the World Health Organization ("WHO") announced that “[f]rom the
data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to
a secondary individual," casting serious doubt on the rationality and effectiveness of wearing
masks in public places.20
222. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) website states that cloth
facemasks “will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to
loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.” OSHA also states that surgical masks “will
not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack
of seal or inadequate filtration.”21
223. There are no scientific studies available to date establishing a conclusive relationship
between the use of facial coverings and protection against influenza infection.22
224. The harms caused by wearing masks, however, are well-documented, including a
recent study involving 158 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age finding that 81%
developed headaches from wearing a face mask.23
225. A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine found that there
is no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks against virus infection or transmission:
19
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6145988945001#sp=show-clips
20
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-
says.html
21
https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/faqs
22
bin‐Reza et al. (2012) The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review
of the scientific evidence. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267.
23
JJY et al., Headaches Associated with Personal Protective Equipment-A Cross Sectional Study Among Frontline
Healthcare Workers During COVID-19, Journal of Head and Face Pain, May 2020, Vol. 60 Issue 5; 864-877,
available at: https://headachejournal.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/head.13811
62
“[M]asks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the
general population, nor in healthcare workers…despite two decades of pandemic
preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks.”24
226. In another study of surgical masks, researchers examined the blood oxygen levels in 53
surgeons using an oximeter, measuring blood oxygenation before surgery as well as at the end
of surgeries. It was discovered that surgical masks reduced the blood oxygen levels
significantly. The longer the duration of wearing the mask, the greater the fall in blood oxygen
levels.25
227. According to another study, face mask use in health care workers has not been
demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.26
228. Another study on the harms of wearing face masks determined that speech and low
work rates significantly increase carbon dioxide rebreathing in masks.27
229. According to a study evaluating the physiological impact of N95 masks on medical
staff, “Wearing N95 masks results in hypooxygenemia and hypercapnia which reduce working
efficiency and the ability to make correct decision…dizziness, headache, and short [sic] of
breath are commonly experienced by the medical staff wearing N95 masks. The ability to
make correct decisions may be hampered, too.”28
24
Tom Jefferson and Carl Heneghan, “Masking lack of evidence with politics,” available at
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/
25
Beder, A.; Büyükkoçak, Ü.; Sabuncuoğlu, H.; Keskil, Z.A.; Keskil, S.: Preliminary report on surgical mask
induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugía 2008; 19: 121–126. Available at available at:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18500410/
26
Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health
care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial, American Journal of Infection Control, 2009, Vol. 37, Issue
5; 417-419, available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002
27
Smith, C. et al. (2013) Carbon Dioxide rebreathing in respiratory protective devices, influence speech and work
rate in full face mask, Ergonomics. 2013; Vol. 56, Issue 5, available at:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00140139.2013.777128
28
The Physiological impact of N95 mask on medical staff, June 2005, Clinical Trial NCT00173017, available at:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00173017
63
230. Face masks can also negatively impact heart rate and cause thermal stress and
discomfort.29
231. Facial coverings do not protect against droplets in eyes and will not protect humans
fromspreading the virus to other humans.30
232. Wearing a facial covering might cause physiological changes to the nasal cavity.31
233. A 2015 study compared the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital
healthcare workers and found that moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration
may result in increased risk of infections.32
234. The COVID-19 virus is a tiny particle, about 0.125 microns (μ) in diameter, varying in
size from 0.06 to 0.14 microns. As a result of its microscopic size, cloth and surgical masks do
a poor job of filtering and keeping viruses out of the mask.33
235. On September 11, 2020, the CDC provided further evidence that masks are ineffective
in preventing the spread of COVID-19, stating “In the 14 days before illness onset, 71% of
case-patients and 74% of control-participants reported always using cloth face coverings or
29
Y. Li. at el. (2005) Effects of wearing N95 and surgical facemasks on heart rate, thermal stress and subjective
sensations, Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health, 2005; 78(6): 501–509, May 26, 2005, available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7087880/
30
Klompas, M. at el. (2020) Universal Masking of Hospitals in the Covid- 19 Era, The New England journal of
Medicine. May 21, 2020; 382:e63 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2006372:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372
31
Zhu, J. et al. (2014) Effects of long- duration wearing of N95 respirator and surgical facemask: a pilot study,
Lung Pulmonary and Respiratory Research. November 22 2014; EISSN: 2376-0060, available at:
https://medcraveonline.com/JLPRR/effects-of-long-duration-wearing-of-n95-respirator-and-
surgical-facemask-a-pilot-study.html.
32
See Maclntyne R. et al (2015) A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in
healthcare workers, BMJ Open 2015; 5 (4): e006577, available at: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
33
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data
(“Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data” according to Dr. Lisa Brosseau, a national expert on
respiratory protection and infectious diseases and retired professor at University of Illinois at Chicago, and Dr.
Margaret Sietsema, who is also an expert on respiratory protection and an assistant professor at the University of
Illinois at Chicago).
64
other mask types when in public.”34
236. On May 7, 2021 the CDC indicated that the primary mechanism for transmission of
COVID-19 is through airborne aerosols, and not, as previously stated, by touching
contaminated surfaces or through large respiratory droplets. The CDC wrote: “The principal
mode by which people are infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) is
through exposure to respiratory fluids carrying infectious virus. Exposure occurs in three
principal ways: (1) inhalation of very fine respiratory droplets and aerosol particles, (2)
deposition of respiratory droplets and particles on exposed mucous membranes in the mouth,
nose, or eye by direct splashes and sprays, and (3) touching mucous membranes with hands that
have been soiled either directly by virus-containing respiratory fluids or indirectly by touching
surfaces with virus on them.”)35
237. A recent comprehensive evaluation of the adverse health effects masks can cause
published in April of 2021 examined 44 experimental studies and 65 publications revealing
relevant adverse effects of masks in numerous disciplines, including Mask-Induced Exhaustion
Syndrome (MIES), changes in respiratory physiology of mask wearers, oxygen drop, fatigue,
respiratory impairment, carbon dioxide rise, headache, and temperature rise.36
238. On August 7, 2021, another scientific study of masking as a form of COVID-19
mitigation and mask mandates was published by the University of Louisville. It confirmed that
34
“Community and Close Contact Exposures Associated with COVID-19 Among Symptomatic Adults > 18 Years
in 11 Outpatient Health Care Facilities – United States, July 2020.” Available at
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf
35
Scientific Brief: SARS-CoV-2 Transmission, available at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/science/science-briefs/sars-cov-2-transmission.html
36
See Kisielinski K, et al. Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in
Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. April 20, 2021, available at:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33923935/
65
mask mandates have not stopped COVID-19 from spreading.37
239. Swiss Policy Research (SPR) – an independent, nonpartisan and nonprofit research
group composed of independent academics – publishes an ongoing compilation of scientific
research on a publicly available blog entitled, “Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence”
showing most studies around the world have found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of
cloth face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a
source control. The compilation was last updated in September 2021.38
240. An August 2021 study published in the International Research Journal of Public Health
found “no association between mask mandates or use and reduced COVID-19 spread in US
states.”39 The authors compared incidents of COVID-19 in U.S. States which had adopted
mask mandates versus incidents of COVID-19 in U.S. States which did not adopt mask
mandates. The authors also compared when U.S. States adopted mask mandates. The authors’
“main finding is that mask mandates and use likely did not affect COVID-19 case growth.
Mask mandates were associated with greater mask use but ultimately did not influence total
normalized cases or post-mandate case growth.”40
241. In many regions of the world, COVID-19 infections actually increased after facial
covering mandates were introduced. For example: The U.S. States of California and Hawaii
and countries like Austria, Belgium, Czechia, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Spain,
37
Mask mandate and use efficacy for COVID-19 containment in US States, Damian D. Guerra, Daniel J. Guerra,
medRxiv 2021.05.18.21257385: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.18.21257385 (finding “mask mandates were not
associated withlower total [COVID-19] cases or lower maximum growth rates” and concluding “We did not
observe association between mask mandates or use and reduced COVID-19 spread in US states.”)
38
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/
39
Damian D. Guerra, Daniel J. Guerra. Mask mandate and use efficacy for COVID-19 containment in US States.
International Research Journal of Public Health, 2021; 5:55. Available at
https://escipub.com/Articles/IRJPH/IRJPH-2021-08-1005.pdf
40
Id.
66
and the United Kingdom.41
242. A November 2020 report by Cochrane, a nonprofit organization that produces
authoritative reviews of medical research, notes: “There is low certainty evidence from nine
trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome
of influenza-like illness…compared to not wearing a mask…There is moderate certainty
evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of
laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask.”42
243. A Danish randomized control trial with 6,000 participants, published in the Annals of
Internal Medicine in November 2020, found no statistically significant effect of high-quality
medical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting.43
244. A large randomized controlled trial with close to 8,000 participants, published in
October 2020 in PLOS One, found that face masks “did not seem to be effective against
laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against clinical respiratory infection.”44
245. Researchers used a sneezing mannequin whose mouth was covered by various face
masks and then measured the amount of aerosolized water droplets that passed through the
protection. They found that cloth masks filtered only 10% and surgical masks filtered only
12% of aerosolized particles. They also found that the remaining aerosols are redirected,
41
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/
42
Jefferson T, Del Mar CB, Dooley L, Ferroni E, Al-Ansary LA, Bawazeer GA, van Driel ML, Jones MA,
Thorning S, Beller EM, Clark J, Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Conly JM. Physical interventions to interrupt or
reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2020, Issue 11. Art. No.:
CD006207. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5. Accessed 28 September 2021. Available at
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full
43
Bundgaard H, et al. Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent
SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Intern Med. March 2021.
Available at https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
44
Alfelali M, Haworth EA, Barasheed O, Badahdah A-M, Bokhary H, Tashani M, et al. (2020) Facemask against
viral respiratory infections among Hajj pilgrims: A challenging cluster-randomized trial. PLoS ONE 15(10):
e0240287. Available at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240287
67
mostly out of the top of the mask where it fits over the nose, and escape into the ambient air
unfiltered.45
246. The performance of cloth masks and surgical masks is likely even worse when the
masks tested by researchers are not fresh and previously-unworn masks, but masks that are
conditioned with water vapor, which would be representative of a mask which has been worn
for a couple of hours.46
247. During a more recent study on the effects of masking people while exercising,
significant harmful effects on the human body’s maximum rate of oxygen consumption were
documented, as well as difficulty breathing and severe discomfort. “Cloth face masks led to
a 14% reduction in exercise time and 29% decrease in [maximal oxygen consumption] to
perceived discomfort associated with mask-wearing. Compared with no mask, participants
reported feeling increasingly short of breath and claustrophobic at higher exercise intensities
while wearing a cloth face mask.”47
248. The University of Florida’s Mass Spectrometry Research and Education Center
recently analyzed six face masks worn by children aged 6 to 11 for five to eight hours at
school, and one worn by an adult, for contaminants. The laboratory detected the presence of 11
dangerous pathogens on the facial coverings, including bacteria that cause diphtheria,
pneumonia, and meningitis. Five of the masks were found to be contaminated with parasites,
45
Yash Shah, et al., Experimental investigation of indoor aerosol dispersion and accumulation in the context of
COVID-19: Effects of masks and ventilation, Physics of Fluids 33, 073315 (2021)
https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0057100 (finding also even high-efficiency masks do not stop COVID-19 from spreading
because “leakages are observed to result in notable decreases in mask efficiency relative to the ideal filtration
efficiency of the mask material, even in the case of high-efficiency masks, such as the R95 or KN95”).
46
Davies, A., Thompson, K. et al. Testing the efficacy of homemade masks: Would they protect in an influenza
Pandemic? Disaster Medicine Public Policy Prep (2013) Aug 7(4): 413-418. Available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7108646/
47
Driver S, Reynolds M, Brown K, et al Effects of wearing a cloth face mask on performance, physiological and
perceptual responses during a graded treadmill running exercise test
British Journal of Sports Medicine Published Online First: 13 April 2021. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2020-103758
68
fungi, and bacteria, and one was found to contain a virus that can cause a fatal systemic disease
in cattle and deer.48
249. According to the CDC, children with COVID-19 typically have mild symptoms or no
symptoms at all. The estimated infection fatality rate for children ages 0-17 is 0.0146%.49
250. The mortality risk for children contracting COVID-19 without serious pre-existing
conditions is effectively zero.
251. For all children, the mortality risk from a COVID-19 infection is lower than from
seasonal influenza and the risk of severe disease or hospitalization is no different.
252. There is no evidence of any increased mortality risk to children from any variant of
COVID-19, including the Delta variant.
253. Data from the United Kingdom regarding fatality rates from the Delta variant show that
the case fatality rate from Delta is lower than from other variants, and it is near 0.0% for those
under 50 years old. Only 48 of the 147,612 unvaccinated people under age 50 who were
infected with the Delta variant died. That’s 0.03%.50
254. The United Kingdom no longer requires masks in schools for students, staff or visitors.
In guidance last updated on September 27, 2021, it was written, “Face coverings are no longer
advised for pupils, staff and visitors either in classrooms or communal areas.” The guidance
emphasized the need to reduce the disruption to the education of children and young people,
and that the direct clinical risks to children are extremely low.51
48
Dangerous pathogens found on local residents’ face masks, Alachua Chronicle (June 15, 2021):
https://alachuachronicle.com/dangerous-pathogens-found-on-local-residents-face-masks
49
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7003e1.htm
50
Public Health England, SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England: Technical
briefing 20, at 14 tbl. 4 (Aug. 6, 2021); see id. at 18 tbl. 5.
51
United Kingdom Department of Education, “Schools COVID-19 operational guidance” (Sept. 27, 2021).
Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/actions-for-schools-during-the-coronavirus-
outbreak/schools-covid-19-operational-guidance
69
255. Recently, a research team at Johns Hopkins University analyzed approximately 48,000
people purportedly diagnosed with COVID-19 in health insurance data from April to August
2020 and found a mortality rate of zero among children without a pre-existing condition such
as leukemia.52
256. In its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report dated March 26, 2021, the CDC stated,
“in Florida, 60% of COVID-19 cases in school-aged children were not school-related, <1% of
registered students were identified as having school-related COVID-19, and <11% of K-12
schools reported outbreaks. These findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that
COVID-19 transmission does not appear to be demonstrably more frequent in schools than in
non-educational settings. Temporal trends in the United States also indicate that among
school-aged children, school-based transmission might be no higher than transmission outside
the school setting; the limited in-school transmission observed in Florida has also been
observed in other states and countries.”53
257. SDPBC’s Facial Covering Mandate fails to account for the fact that children are less
likely to contract COVID-19 and that, if they do contract it, they display less severe
symptoms.54
258. Children are also less likely to transmit the virus.55
259. COVID-19 infection in children is generally characterized by mild illness and only a
52
The Flimsy Evidence Behind the CDC’s Push to Vaccinate Children: The agency overcounts Covid
hospitalizations and deaths and won’t consider if one shot is sufficient, Wall Street Journal (June 19, 2021),
available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/cdc-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine-side-effects-hospitalization-kids-
11626706868
53
COVID-19 in Primary and Secondary School Settings During the First Semester of School Reopening — Florida,
August–December 2020, CDC MMWR, March 26, 2021, Vol. 70, No. 12, page 437:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7012-H.pdf
54
Nicholas G. Davies, Age-Dependent Effects in the Transmission and Control of COVID Epidemics, 26 Nature
Med. 1205, 1205 (2020) (concluding that susceptibility of infection in those under twenty is half that for those over
twenty and that those under twenty do not manifest clinical symptoms as often).
55
Id. at 1208–09
70
minority of children require hospitalization: “Worldwide, relatively few children have been
reported with COVID-19. . . Children become less seriously ill and almost never need to be
hospitalised.”56
260. Another study found an infection rate of 0.13% among students and 0.24% among staff
after analyzing in-school infection data from over 47 states. Schools are more likely affected
by COVID-19 rates in the community than by community spread occurring in schools.57
261. As of July 31, 2021, the CDC reported that the rate of hospitalization with COVID-19
for children between 5 and 17 was 0.5 per 100,000, or about 250 patients.58 The numbers
overestimate the risk because all children admitted to the hospital are tested whether they
complain of COVID-19 or other afflictions.
262. Although the risks schoolchildren face from COVID-19, as well as the risk that they
transmit the virus, are relatively low, there is a significant cost to forcing them to wear facial
coverings such as the fact that facial coverings hinder verbal and non-verbal communication.59
263. The same risks associated with facial covering use in adults are present with respect to
children— namely, that the facial coverings create a false sense of security and that failing to
properly wear face coverings over their noses and mouths and that touching the facial coverings
will eliminate, if not exceed, any benefit achieved by having students wear facial coverings.
56
Children, School and COVID-19, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (last updated July 14,
2021), https://www.rivm.nl/en/coronavirus-covid-19/children-and-covid-19
57
Patrick Boyle, Kids, School, and COVID-19: What We Know—and What We Don’t, AAMC (Nov. 5, 2020).
58
Marty Makary & H. Cody Meissner, The Case Against Masks for Children, Wall Street Journal (Aug. 8, 2021),
available at: https://on.wsj.com/3ANwOlt.
59
Jonas F. Ludvigsson, Little Evidence for Facemask Use in Children Against COVID-19, 110 Acta Paediatrica
742, 742 (2021), available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apa.15729; Connor Harris, Do We Need
Mask Mandates?, City Journal (Mar. 22, 2021): https://www.city-journal.org/do-we-need-mask-mandates (“Some
child development researchers also worry that widespread mask-wearing may hamper children’s linguistic and
emotional development.”); John T. Brooks, et al., Effectiveness of Mask Wearing to Control Community Spread of
SARS-CoV-2, J. Am. Med. Ass., Feb. 10, 2021, at 7 (finding that “children were less accurate with faces that wore
a mask compared to faces that were not covered”).
71
See id.
264. There are common-sense concerns with having children wear a face mask all day while
at school, such as general discomfort and unhappiness.60
265. Mask requirements also harm students by taking up instructional time as teachers
police compliance, take mask breaks, send students to get masks, and punish them for failing
to comply.
266. Children with special needs find it especially difficult to wear masks but may not be
able to take advantage of any of the exceptions in the Facial Covering Mandate.61
267. A recent study out of India found a significant correlation between prolonged use of
cloth masks and black fungal lung infections.62
268. Science does not support the proposition that the Facial Covering Mandate can or will
reduce or prevent the spread of COVID-19; rather, it shows it may cause increased risk of
various maladies.
269. On June 8, 2021, a Kentucky court entered a permanent injunction against the State of
Kentucky’s mask mandate. The ruling, in pertinent part, confirmed masks don’t stop COVID-
19:
Stephen E. Petty, P.E., CIH, testified as an expert and was accepted as such
withoutobjection. Mr. Petty has served as an expert witness in approximately 400
cases relating to toxic or infectious exposure, personal protective equipment, as
an expertfor the plaintiffs in the Monsanto “Roundup” cases, and for those in the
Dupont C8litigation. In connection with his service as an expert, he was deposed
nearly 100 times and provided court testimony in approximately 20 trials… He
testified that both the six-foot-distancing rule, and mask mandates, are wholly
ineffective at reducing the spread of this virus. Masks are worthless, he
60
Connor Harris, Do We Need Mask Mandates?, City Journal (Mar. 22, 2021): https://www.city-journal.org/do-we-
need-mask-mandates (“In a self-selected surveyof German schoolchildren, more than half of the participants
reported headaches.”).
61
The Challenge of Face Masks,Organization for Autism Research (Nov. 12, 2020), https://bit.ly/3eVYRa3.
62
See Umang Arora, et al. Novel risk factors for Coronavirus disease-associated mucormycosis (CAM): a case
control study during the outbreak in India, medRxiv 2021.07.24.21261040; doi:
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.24.21261040.
72
explained, because they are not capable of filtering anything as small as Covid-19
aerosols…masks have nostandards, are not respirators, and do not even qualify
as protective equipment…mask wearing provides no benefit whatsoever, either
to the wearer or others… Mr. Petty pointed to another recent study by Ben
Sheldon of Stanford University… According to that study, “both the medical and
non-medical face masks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of
viral and infectiousdiseases, such as SARS, CoV-2 and COVID-19.” The Court
finds the opinions expressed by Mr. Petty firmly established in logic. The
inescapable conclusion fromhis testimony is that ordering masks to stop Covid-
19 is like putting up chain-link fencing to keep out mosquitos.63
270. SDPBC’s Facial Covering Mandate is not reasonable or necessary and is arbitrary and
capricious because SDPBC failed to consider the well-documented harm caused by masks to
mask wearers, including physical and psychological harms.
271. The Facial Covering Mandate is not necessary or reasonable and is arbitrary and
capricious because SDPBC failed to consider the effect that natural immunity and antibodies
from the population that previously contracted COVID-19 have on community spread.
272. The Facial Covering Mandate is arbitrary and capricious because SDPBC failed to
engage in reasoned decision-making and have subjected the Parent Plaintiffs, the Minor
Children Plaintiffs, and approximately 11,000 other schoolchildren in the School District of
Palm Beach County— who opted not to wear masks—to an unnecessary, burdensome, and
harmful Facial Covering Mandate.
63
See Page 15 of June 8, 2021 Permanent Injunction in Ridgeway Properties, LLC et al. v. Beshear, Case No. 20-
CI-00678, available at: https://ratical.org/PandemicParallaxView/Boone-CC-Judgement+Order-060812.pdf. see
also Order dated August 19, 2021 in Oswald et al. v. Beshear,Case No. 2:21-cv-000960-WOB-CJS (E.D. Ky.)
(enjoining the Governor’s school mask mandate because the plaintiffs demonstrated likelihood of success on merits,
stating, inter alia, “Executive Branch cannot simply ignore laws”), available at: https://casetext.com/case/oswald-v-
beshear.
SDPBC’s Facial Covering Mandate is not reasonable or necessary and is arbitrary and capricious because Defendant
failed to consider the well-documented harm caused by masks to mask wearers.
73
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S UNMASKING ORDER
273. SDPBC has recently made a habit of ignoring the guidance of the Florida
Department of Health and has acted defiantly in crafting, adopting, and implementing the
Facial Covering Mandate.
274. On April 29, 2021, the Florida Department of Health ("DOH") categorically
rescinded all of its guidance related to masking such that the DOH no longer even
recommends face masking. Not even for adults, much less for children. A copy of the
DOH's order rescinding all its previous masking recommendations is attached hereto as
Exhibit H (the "DOH Unmasking Order").
275. After DOH rescinded its masking recommendation, SDPBC, without any
explanation stopped following the guidance of the Florida Department of Health.
276. SDPBC is picking and choosing the source of authority that will support the Facial
Covering Mandate that it wishes to impose on students. Selecting vague guidance from
the CDC or FDA not based on State data is not a rational approach drawn from science or
reason.
277. SDPBC has irrationally, arbitrarily, and capriciously ignored the effect of the DOH
Unmasking Order, which removes even a voluntary masking suggestion throughout the
State of Florida. SDPBC crafted, adopted and is in the process of implementing the Facial
Covering Mandate after the DOH unmasked Florida.
SPECIFIC HARMS CAUSED BY THE FACIAL COVERING MANDATE
278. The Minor Children Plaintiffs are harmed by facial coverings in a variety of specific
ways.
279. Some students are harmed because the masks are uncomfortable and an ongoing
distraction, and the Facial Covering Mandate degrades their academic performance.
74
280. Some students suffer from persistent headaches while wearing the masks at school -
even kids who have never experienced such headaches in the past.
281. Some students experience exacerbation of existing sensory issues or deficits, and
the masks lead to disciplinary problems for them due to their good-natured preference to
sacrifice their mask compliance in an effort to learn.
282. Some students have developed dermatological conditions or eye infections arising
from the wearing of masks.
283. Some students have difficulty hearing teachers when teachers are masked, or they
have difficulty seeing through their fogged glasses. As a result, their academic
performance suffers.
284. Some students have difficulty learning ordinary language and social skills when
they and their peers are masked, and their social development suffers as a result.
285. Some students experience anxiety when wearing a mask, or at the thought of
having to wear a mask for an extended period of time.
286. Some students have difficulty breathing when wearing a mask, especially when
engaged in physical activity, and many of these students do not have pre-existing
respiratory disorders.
287. In May 2021, Dr. Michael Lauzardo, the University of Florida's Emerging
Pathogens Institute's Covid-19 expert, testified under oath that there was no public health
justification to compel a child to wear a mask if the child is experiencing any negative
effects.
288. In pursuit of its own objectives at the expense of certain students, SDPBC's Facial
Covering Mandate compels children to wear facial coverings despite these recognized,
sub-clinical harms to a sizable portion of the county's students.
75
289. The Facial Covering Mandate is irrational in that it prioritizes one potential harm –
COVID-19 – over the specific actual harms inflicted upon the Minor Children Plaintiffs by
forced facial coverings.
SDPBC LACKED STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO ENACT THE FACIAL

COVERING MANDATE
290. SDPBC makes its rules pursuant to the Florida Administrative Procedures Act
(“APA”).
291. The APA prescribes procedures for agencies to make rules, but the rules must be (1)
enabled by a specific authorizing statute, and not just part of any “general” intent, and (2) may
not be arbitrary and/or capricious as the APA defines those terms.
292. The Facial Covering Mandate is not founded on any specific authorizing statute,
because none exists.
293. The Facial Covering Mandate is arbitrary and/or capricious as those terms are defined
in the APA.
294. The Facial Covering Mandate is void ab initio and ultra vires.
SDPBC’S FACIAL COVERING MANDATE VIOLATES DOH RULE 2
295. On August 6, 2021, the Florida Department of Health promulgated Emergency Rule 64
DER21-12 (“DOH Rule 1”).
296. In relevant part, DOH Rule 1 stated, “[s]tudents may wear masks or facial coverings as
a mitigation measure; however, the school must allow for a parent or legal guardian of the
student to opt-out the student from wearing a face covering or mask.”
297. On September 22, 2021, the Florida Department of Health promulgated Emergency
Rule 64 DER21-15 (“DOH Rule 2”).
298. DOH Rule 2 repealed DOH Rule 1. However, it retains the requirement that school
76
districts give parents the option to opt their children out of having to wear facial coverings:
“Schools may adopt requirements for students to wear masks or facial coverings as a
student to opt the student out of wearing a face covering or mask at the parent or legal
guardian’s sole discretion.” Therefore, nothing substantive has changed on this matter.
299. A parental opt-out is distinct from an application for a medical exemption or other
exemption because a parental opt-out is unconditional, no questions asked and no application
process needed.
300. SDPBC violates DOH Rule 2 by having a Facial Covering Mandate which excludes a
parental opt-out, has exemptions only for a very limited set of medical conditions, and requires
medical documentation for those exemptions.
THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY
301. Florida’s constitutional right to privacy reads simply: “Every natural person has the
right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life except
as otherwise provided herein.” Fla. Const. Art. I. § 23.
302. Florida’s express constitutional right to privacy is broader than the implicit right to
privacy found in the United States Constitution. Winfield v. Div. of Pari–Mutuel Wagering,
477 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1985).
303. Florida’s Right of Privacy also includes the right to liberty. State v. J.P., 907 So. 2d
1101, 1115 (Fla. 2004) (holding that the Florida constitutional right to privacy includes the right
to liberty and self-determination).
304. “No doubt this language reflects a core principle of the republic. It is the free citizen's
explicit constitutional protection from government, and his first and greatest right: ‘the right to
77
the inviolability of his person; in other words, the right to himself.’” Green v. Alachua Cty.,
2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 8634 *1, *21 (Fla. 1st DCA June 11, 2021) (Long, J., concurring)
(Quoting State v. Presidential Women's Ctr., 937 So. 2d 114, 116 (Fla. 2006)).
305. “The right of privacy is a ‘fundamental’ one, expressly protected by the Florida
Constitution, and any law that implicates it ‘is presumptively unconstitutional,’ such that it
must be subject to strict scrutiny and justified as the least restrictive means to serve a
compelling governmental interest.” Green, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 8634 at *5 (Quoting
Gainesville Woman Care, 210 So. 3d at 1246) (Emphasis added); See also N. Fla. Women's
Health & Counseling Servs., Inc. v. State, 866 So. 2d 612, 625 n. 16 (Fla. 2003) (“The
legislation is presumptively unconstitutional…the State must prove that the legislation furthers
a compelling State interest through the least restrictive means.”)
306. “The [Florida] [S]upreme [C]ourt has construed this fundamental right [to privacy] to
be so broad as to include the complete freedom of a person to control his own body.” Green,
2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 8634 at *8-9.
307. “The [Florida] Supreme Court has explained repeatedly that within the right to be let
alone is ‘a fundamental right to the sole control of his or her person’…This right ostensibly
covers ‘an individual’s control over or the autonomy of the intimacies of personal identity’ and
a ‘physical and psychological zone within which an individual has the right to be free from
intrusion or coercion, whether by government or by society at large.’” Green, 2021 Fla. App.
LEXIS 8634 at *12 (Quoting In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4, 10 (Fla. 1990)).
308. “The right to be let alone by government does exist in Florida, as part of a right of
privacy that our [S]upreme [C]ourt has declared to be fundamental…the [S]upreme [C]ourt
has construed this fundamental right to be so broad as to include the complete freedom of a
78
person to control his own body. Under this construction, a person reasonably can expect
not to be forced by the government to put something on his own face against his will….”
Green, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 8634 at *7-9 (Holding that mask mandates implicate Florida’s
constitutional right to privacy) (Emphasis added); But see Machovec v. Palm Beach Cty., 310
So. 3d 941, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).
309. Government policies which implicate the right to privacy are subject to strict
scrutiny. It is well settled in Florida that to invade a citizen’s fundamental right of privacy
under the Florida Constitution, a government defendant must meet a “strict scrutiny” standard.
See N. Fla. Women's Health & Counseling Servs., Inc. v. State, 866 So. 2d 612, 635 (Fla.
2003) (“Florida courts consistently have applied the ‘strict’ scrutiny standard whenever the
Right of Privacy Clause wasimplicated, regardless of the nature of the activity.”)
310. Strict scrutiny requires the government to show that the challenged regulation serves a
compelling state interest and accomplishes its goal through the use of the least intrusive
means. See Winfield, 477 So. 2d at 547 (explaining that where a law intrudes on fundamental
right to privacy guaranteed in Florida’s Constitution, the State must demonstrate that the
challenged regulation serves a compelling state interest and accomplishes its goal through the
use of the leastintrusive means). Gainesville Woman Care, 210 So. 3d at 1246; N. Fla.
Women's Health & Counseling Servs., 866 So. 2d at 625 n. 16; Green, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS
8634 at *5.
311. Facial covering mandates (also known more commonly as “mask mandates”)
implicate the right to privacy and are presumptively unconstitutional. Green, 2021 Fla.
App. LEXIS 8634 at *15 (Holding that mask mandates are presumptively unconstitutional
under Florida Supreme Court precedent); See N. Fla. Women's Health & Counseling Servs.,
79
Inc., 866 So. 2d at 625, n.16 (“The legislation is presumptively unconstitutional . . . the State
must prove that the legislation furthers a compelling State interest through the least intrusive
means”); But see Machovec v. Palm Beach Cty., 310 So. 3d 941, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).
312. Logically, to withstand strict scrutiny, facial covering mandates must be necessary to
promote a compelling governmental interest, must be narrowly tailored to advance that
interest, and they must be the least restrictive means. See State v. J.P., 907 So. 2d at 1110; See
Gainesville Woman Care, 210 So. 3d at 1246; See N. Fla. Women's Health & Counseling
Servs., Inc. v. State, 866 So. 2d 612, 625 n. 16; Green, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 8634 at *5.
313. Government defendants cannot demonstrate that facial covering mandates, or the
enforcement thereof, are necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, are
narrowly tailored to advance that interest, and are the least restrictive means. Forcing
children to wear facial coverings in school is certainly not necessary to ensure their
health, safety or welfare.
314. On March 31, 2020, the U.S. Surgeon General said that the data does not support
wearing masks, which are ineffective in preventing respiratory diseases and actually
increase the risk of getting Covid-19. ("On an individual level, there was a study in 2015
looking at medical students and medical students wearing surgical masks touch their face
on average 23 times...We know a major way that you can get respiratory diseases like
coronavirus is by touching a surface and then touching your face so wearing a mask
improperly can actually increase your risk of getting disease. It can also give you a
false sense of security.")
315. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) believes that cloth face
masks “will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose
80
fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.”64
316. On June 8, 2020, the World Health Organization announced that "[f]rom the data we
have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a
secondary individual," casting serious doubt on the rationality and effectiveness of wearing
masks to prevent Covid-19.
317. In May 2021 - months behind its peer agencies and the scientific community - the CDC
substantially revised its prior guidance, admitting that Covid-19 is not spread primarily
through respiratory droplets but rather is primarily spread through very fine airborne
transmissible infectious agents. This fact casts serious doubt about the rationality and
effectiveness of wearing masks to prevent Covid-19.
318. On June 19, 2020, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis rightly stated that wearing masks
must be voluntary because “the Constitution is not suspended just because there is a virus.”
319. Countless studies over the last 100 years published in the world's top medical journals
by the world's most respected scientists (some of them being cited in this Complaint) have
concluded, over and over and over that face masking is not effective for controlling or
preventing respiratory illnesses, especially airborne ones.
320. Facial coverings can cause serious harm to children.
321. Facial coverings, when placed over both nose and mouth decrease oxygen intake
levels.
322. Restricting oxygen intake is a hazard for all humans, who need oxygen to survive.
323. Facial coverings are harmful because rebreathing exhaled air causes degenerative
processes in the brain which are amplified by oxygen deprivation.
64
https://www.aiha.org/news/osha-publishes-faqs-about-cloth-face-coverings-in-the-workplace
81
324. Facial coverings are harmful to the brain of all children and adolescents because they
inhibit the development of the brain.
325. Brain damage from wearing facial coverings cannot be reversed.
326. Facial coverings are harmful to all children because oxygen deficiency is a health
hazard and oxygen deprivation damages every organ in the human body.
327. SDPBC knows that masks can be harmful, especially to children with disabilities and
pre-existing medical conditions, which is why the Facial Covering Mandate purports to offer
an exception to a limited number of children with “approved” disabilities preventing them
from wearing masks. However, all children, including the Minor Children Plaintiffs should be
exempt from wearing facial coverings because they could all be harmed (regardless of pre-
existing medical conditions) by facial coverings.
328. The Facial Covering Mandate can’t survive any level of scrutiny, including rational
basis review, because facial coverings are dangerous for all school children and adolescents,
including but not limited to the Minor Children Plaintiffs, and thousands of other children
without disabilities that SDPBC is forcing to wear facial coverings without parental consent.
329. SDPBC cannot demonstrate that facial coverings are prudent and necessary to ensure the
health, safety, or welfare of children.
330. Facial coverings do not ensure health, safety, or welfare, but rather can cause serious
harm to children, including increasing their risk of exposure to various maladies, including
harmful pathogens.
331. Cotton masks have never been considered effective personal protective equipment.
332. Facial coverings also harm students by inhibiting face-to-face and peer-to-peer
learning.
82
333. Facial coverings harm students because they are an ongoing distraction and cause a
negative impact on academic performance.
334. Facial coverings are harmful to students because they are uncomfortable to wear
and cause both social and academic problems for students.
335. Facial coverings are harmful because they can cause dermatological conditions arising
from wearing them, such as rashes.
336. Facial coverings are harmful because they can cause eye infections.
337. Facial coverings are harmful because they can cause sensory problems.
338. Facial coverings are harmful because students have difficulty hearing teachers and
peers who have them on.
339. Facial coverings are harmful because they cause anxiety and fear.
THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
340. The Florida Constitution guarantees that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law.” Fla. Const. Art. I § 9.
341. A government policy violates the due process clause when it infringes upon a
fundamental right without withstanding strict scrutiny.
342. The right to privacy is a fundamental right. Gainesville Woman Care, 210 So. 3d at
1246; N. Fla. Women's Health & Counseling Servs., Inc. v. State, 866 So. 2d 612, 625 n. 16
(Fla. 2003); Green, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 8634 at *5.
83
use of the least intrusive means). Gainesville Woman Care, 210 So. 3d at 1246; N. Fla.
Women's Health & Counseling Servs., Inc. v. State, 866 So. 2d 612, 625 n. 16; Green, 2021
Fla. App. LEXIS 8634 at *5.
344. Forcing children to wear facial coverings implicates their right to privacy. See the
paragraphs above on The Florida Constitution’s Right to Privacy.
345. Therefore, facial covering mandates (like SBPBC’s) must withstand strict scrutiny.
346. Facial covering mandates cannot withstand strict scrutiny because of the myriad
reasons shown above: the harm that facial coverings cause to children and to people in general;
and the questionable efficiency of facial coverings in stopping the spread of COVID-19.
347. Therefore, facial covering mandates violate the due process clause for the same reason
that they violate the privacy clause.
THE FLORIDA PARENTS’ BILL OF RIGHTS
348. F.S. § 1014.03 states, “Infringement of parental rights. —The state, any of its political
subdivisions, any other governmental entity, or any other institution may not infringe upon the
fundamental rights of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental
health of his or her minor child without demonstrating that such action is reasonable and
necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that such action is narrowly tailored and is
not otherwise served by a less restrictive means.”
349. F.S. § 1014.04(4) provides, “A parent of a minor child in this state hasinalienable
rights that are more comprehensive than those listed in this section, unless such rightshave
been legally waived or terminated. This chapter does not prescribe all rights to a parent of a
minor child in this state. Unless required by law, the rights of a parent or a minor child in this
84
statemay not be limited or denied.”
350. F.S. § 1014.04(1) further provides: “All parental rights are reserved to the parent of a
minor child in this state without obstruction or interference from the state, or any of its
political subdivisions, any other governmental entity, or any other institution, including but
not limited to, all of the following rights of a parent of a minor child in this state:
(a) The right to direct the education and care of his or her minor child.
(b) The right to direct the upbringing and the moral or religious training of his or
her minor child.
(c) The right, pursuant to S. 1002.20(2)(b) and (6), to apply to enroll his or her
minor child in a public school.
(d) The right to make health care decisions for his or her minor child, unless
otherwise prohibited by law.
FLORIDA ALWAYS INTENDED FOR COVID-19 MEASURES TO PROTECT CIVIL

RIGHTS
351. On May 4, 2020, the State of Florida's COVID-19 Task Force published a Report
called “Plan for Florida's Recovery” (the “Plan”) that describes various scenarios under
which citizens should “consider” using masks.65 Nothing in the Plan suggests that masks
should be mandatory.
352. The Plan identifies seven “Guiding Principles.”
353. The Plan's fifth Guiding Principle is “Protecting Civil Rights”:
(a) “Measures taken by the government must not impair the fundamental rights
of Floridians, and when restrictive measures are imposed, they should be
the least restrictive measures feasible to accomplish a specific medically
65
Available online at https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/covidl9/Taskforce%20Report.pdf.
85
necessary objective.” Florida's Re-Opening Task Force Report, p. 7
(emphasis added).
354. SDPBC's Facial Covering Mandate impairs the fundamental rights of the Plaintiffs.
355. The mandatory facial covering of all SDPBC students does not accomplish any
specific medically necessary objective and ignores every other specific medically necessary
consideration.
356. SDPBC's Facial Covering Mandate does not use the least restrictive measures
feasible to accomplish any specific medically necessary objective.
THERE IS A CONTROVERSY OF JUSTICIABLE NATURE
357. A declaratory judgment is appropriate when it will terminate the controversy giving rise
to the proceedings.
358. An actual, present and justiciable controversy exists between the Plaintiffs and SDPBC.
359. A declaratory judgment is appropriate because it will terminate the controversy
regarding SDPBC’s violations of laws and Plaintiffs’ rights as stated herein.
360. Plaintiffs have a practical interest in the declaration sought.
361. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment from this Court that SDPBC’s actions as set forth
in this Complaint violate the laws and Plaintiffs’ rights.
362. All elements necessary to support a cause of action for declaratory relief are present:
(a) There is a bona fide, actual, present need for a declaration that SDPBC’s Facial
Covering Mandate is invalid and unconstitutional.
(b) The declaration sought deals with a present controversy as to an ascertainable set
of facts.
(c) Constitutionally provided rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs are dependent
86
upon the law applicable to the facts.
(d) The Plaintiffs and SDPBC have an actual, present, adverse, and antagonistic
interest in the subject matter of this Complaint.
(e) The antagonistic and adverse interests are all before this Court.
(f) The relief sought is not merely the giving of legal advice or providing the
answerto a question propounded from curiosity, but stems from an actual
controversy.
363. All conditions precedent to bringing this lawsuit have been performed, excused, or
waived.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSION
364. All conditions precedent to bringing this lawsuit have been performed, excused, or
waived.
365. The Facial Covering Mandate imposes a restrictive measure.
366. The Facial Covering Mandate is not medically necessary to a specific objective.
367. The Facial Covering Mandate is not the least restrictive feasible measure.
368. There is a significant likelihood of irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs due to the
deprivation of fundamental rights.
369. Plaintiffs lack an adequate remedy at law.
370. The ongoing harms to the Plaintiffs and the deprivation of the Plaintiffs'
constitutional rights cannot be remedied by money or any judgment other than declaratory
relief and an injunction.
371. The Plaintiffs are not being let alone and free from government interference.
372. SDPBC's Facial Covering Mandate is facially and presumptively invalid since it
implicates and infringes upon the Plaintiffs' fundamental constitutional rights.
87
373. A permanent injunction of S D P B C 's Facial Covering Mandate will serve the
public interest. All school children, parents, teachers, and staff are unduly burdened by
SDPBC's irrational, arbitrary, and capricious overreach. Not only is it irrational, but the
Facial Covering Mandate violates the Plaintiffs' fundamental Florida Constitutional
Rights. The public has a strong interest in protecting their rights, keeping children
from harm, and allowing parents to direct the education, medical care, and upbringing of
their children.
374. Plaintiffs have been injured and will continue to be injured as a result of the Facial
Covering Mandate.
375. Therefore, facial covering mandates must withstand strict scrutiny.
COUNT I: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION BASED UPON INVALID

EXERCISE OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY UNDER FLORIDA LAW.
ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANT
376. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-375 as though fully set forth
herein.
377. SDPBC’s authority to make rules like the Facial Covering Mandate must be derived
from Florida Statute by an express delegation of authority.
378. SDPBC’s authority may not exceed the specific powers delegated to it under statute.
General delegations are ineffective to provide any basis for SDPBC to implement the
Mandate.
379. F.S. § 120.536(1) is often called the "Map-Tack" requirement because it states that
a grant of rulemaking authority alone is not sufficient authorization for an agency to adopt
a rule, and only authorizes an agency to adopt rules that implement or interpret the
specific powers and duties granted by the enabling statute. Florida's Map-Tack statute
88
provides in relevant part that:
“A grant of rulemaking authority is necessary but not sufficient to allow an agency to adopt
a rule; a specific law to be implemented is also required. An agency may adopt only rules
that implement or interpret the specific powers and duties granted by the enabling statute.
No agency shall have authority to adopt a rule only because it is reasonably related to the
purpose of the enabling legislation and is not arbitrary and capricious or is within the
agency's class of powers and duties, nor shall an agency have the authority to implement
statutory provisions setting forth general legislative intent or policy. Statutory language granting
rulemaking authority or generally describing the powers and functions of an agency shall be
construed to extend no further than implementing or interpreting the specific powers and duties
conferred by the enabling statute.” (Emphases added).
380. To recap, to be valid, an agency’s rule must be supported by both 1) a statute granting
the agency rulemaking authority, and 2) an enabling statute that has specific powers which are
implemented or interpreted by the agency rule.
381. The Facial Covering Mandate satisfies neither of these requirements.
382. First, the statutes which the Facial Covering Mandate cites as “rulemaking authority”
do not grant SDPBC the authority to enact a Facial Covering Mandate. They are F.S. §§
1001.32(2), 1001.42(28), and 120.81(1).
(a) F.S. § 1001.32(2) does not provide that rulemaking authority. It states, “In
accordance with the provisions of s. 4(b) of Art. IX of the State Constitution,
district school boards shall operate, control, and supervise all free public schools
in their respective districts and may exercise any power except as expressly
prohibited by the State Constitution or general law.” (Emphasis added).
a. However, the State Constitution and general law prohibit a school district
from enacting a facial covering mandate without a parental opt-out: DOH
Rule 2, the Parents’ Bill of Rights, Fla. Const. Art. I § 23, and a slew of
constitutional provisions and statutes which show that the Florida
Department of Education – which is against facial covering mandates that
89
lack parental opt-outs – trumps the school districts (which are subject to
the DOE in the statutory hierarchy of Florida public education) on this
issue.66
b. Case law also supports the supremacy of the Florida Department of
Education over local school districts: “The Florida Constitution ‘creates a
hierarchy under which a school board has local control, but the State
Board supervises the system as a whole.’…The State’s ‘broader
supervisory authority may at times infringe on a school board’s local
powers, but such infringement is expressly contemplated – and in fact
encouraged by the very nature of supervision – by the Florida
Constitution.”67
(b) F.S. § 1001.42(28) does not provide that rulemaking authority either. It simply
authorizes school districts to “adopt rules pursuant to [F.S. §§] 120.536(1) and
120.54 to implement this section,” which, as we shall see, SDPBC did not do.
(c) F.S. § 120.81(1) does not grant that rulemaking authority either. It does not
authorize school districts to enact health regulations or mandate facial coverings,
but it does exempt school districts from complying with the provisions of F.S. §§
120.536(1) and 120.52(8) so long as the school board adopts rules to implement
its general powers under F.S. § 1001.41.
a. The Facial Covering Mandate does not implement school districts’
powers found in F.S. § 1001.41. F.S. § 1001.41 does not authorize school
66
Fla. Const. Art. IX § 1(a); Fla. Const. Art. IX § 2 (“[t]he state board of education…shall have such supervision of
the system of free public education as is provided by law.”); F.S. §§ 1001.02, 1008.32, and 1003.22.
67
Sch. Bd. of Collier Cty. v. Fla. Dep’t of Educ., 279 So. 3d 281, 286-87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (Quoting Sch. Bd. of
Palm Beach Cty. v. Fla. Charter Educ. Found., Inc., 213 So. 3d 356, 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)).
90
districts to enact health regulations or mandate facial coverings.
b. Thus, any rule enacted under F.S. § 120.81(1) – such as the Facial
Covering Mandate – must comply with the provisions of F.S. §§
120.536(1) and 120.52(8). It doesn’t, as we shall see below.
(d) Therefore, neither F.S. § 1001.32(2), F.S. § 1001.42(28), nor F.S. § 120.81(1)
provide SDPBC with rulemaking authority to enact the Facial Covering
Mandate.
383. Second, the statutes which the Facial Covering Mandate cites as “laws implemented”
do not provide specific powers which the Facial Covering Mandate interprets or implements.
Those statutes are F.S. §§ 1001.32(3), 1001.43(1), 1001.43(6), 1001.43(7), 1001.42(2), and
1001.42(8):
(a) F.S. § 1001.32(3): “Responsibility for the administration and management of
the schools and for the supervision of instruction in the district shall be vested
in the district school superintendent as the secretary and executive officer of the
district school board, as provided by law.”
(b) F.S. § 1001.43(1), which deals with general student management, such as the
prohibition of drugs on campus, regulating how students leave campus, and
regarding wearing uniforms on campus.
(c) F.S. § 1001.43(6): “The district school board may adopt policies and procedures
necessary to implement federal mandates and programs, court orders, and other
legal requirements of the state.”
(d) F.S. § 1001.43(7), which authorizes the district school board to adopt programs
and policies to render timely first aid and emergency medical care. The programs
91
listed show that the emergency medical care contemplated by the statute is one in
which a student or school personnel suddenly falls very ill and is in need of
urgent medical care/first aid. The provision of suddenly-needed urgent medical
care/first aid is not what the Facial Covering Mandate addresses or is geared
toward.
(e) F.S. § 1001.42(2), which authorizes the district school board to “control property
and convey the title to real and personal property” subject to rules of the State
Board of Education.
(f) F.S. § 1001.42(8), which authorizes the district school board to generally provide
a proper accounting for the “health, safety, and other matters relating to the
welfare of students.” It also authorizes district school boards to provide for the
attendance and control of students and to “fully support the authority of each
teacher and school bus driver to remove disobedient, disrespectful, violent,
abusive, uncontrollable, or disruptive students from the classroom…” This is too
general.
384. SDPBC also cited DOH Rule 1 as a law implemented, but that doesn’t count. Florida’s
Map-Tack statute requires implemented laws to be statutes, and DOH Rule 1 was not a statute.
Plus, it has been repealed by DOH Rule 2. Plus, DOH Rule 1 mandated a parental opt-out,
which the Facial Covering Mandate does not include.
385. Just because SDPBC believes (wrongly) that mandatory facial coverings may be
“generally related” to statutes describing some intent related to student health, F.S. §
120.536(1) specifically precludes such a general intent from forming the basis for authority for
the Facial Covering Mandate.
92
386. Therefore, under Florida’s Map-Tack statute, SDPBC has not cited a law which its
Facial Covering Mandate allegedly implements.
387. SDPBC has no authority to promulgate its Facial Covering Mandate.
388. F.S. §§ 120.52(8) and 120.536(1) state: “A grant of rulemaking authority is necessary
but not sufficient to allow an agency to adopt a rule; a specific law to be implemented is also
required. An agency may adopt only rules that implement or interpret the specific powers and
duties granted by the enabling statute. No agency shall have authority to adopt a rule only
because it is reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation and is not arbitrary
and capricious or is within the agency’s class of powers and duties, nor shall an agency have
the authority to implement statutory provisions setting forth general legislative intent or policy.
Statutory language granting rulemaking authority or generally describing the powers and
functions of an agency shall be construed to extend no further than implementing or
interpreting the specific powers and duties conferred by the enabling statute.”
389. F.S. § 120.54(1)(e): “No agency has inherent rulemaking authority, nor has any agency
authority to establish penalties for violation of a rule unless the Legislature, when establishing
a penalty, specifically provides that the penalty applies to rules.”
390. On August 6, 2021, the State Health Officer, Dr. Scott A. Rivkees, signed Emergency
Rule64DER21-12 “Protocols for Controlling COVID19 in School Settings” (“DOH Rule 1”),
which states, “Students may wear masks or facial coverings as a mitigation measure;
however, the school must allow for a parent or legal guardian of the student to opt-out
the student from wearing a face covering or mask.” (Emphases added).
391. Thus, SDPBC disregarded the Florida Constitution, Florida Statutes, and DOH Rule 1
(later replaced by DOH Rule 2) to make up its own rule that violates the rights of both parents
93
and students in Palm Beach County, including the Parent Plaintiffs’ right to opt their children
out of wearing facial coverings in public schools.
392. The Facial Covering Mandate is void ab initio and ultra vires.
393. Pursuant to F.S. § 120.52(8), an "[i]nvalid exercise of delegated legislative authority"
means an action that goes beyond the powers, functions, and duties delegated to the
agency by the Legislature.
394. Pursuant to F.S. § 120.52(8)(b), if an agency exceeds its grant of statutory
rulemaking authority, the action is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
395. Pursuant to F.S. § 120.52(8)(e), a rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative
authority if it is arbitrary or capricious. "A rule is arbitrary if it is not supported by logic or the
necessary facts; a rule is capricious if it is adopted without thought or reason or is irrational."
396. SDPBC's Facial Covering Mandate is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative
authority.
397. SDPBC has acted (without colorable statutory authority) in a way that is clearly in
excess of its delegated powers.
398. SDPBC was made aware that it could not legally force students to wear facial
coverings on August 18, 2021 by the School Board’s General Counsel, yet SDPBC ignored the
law to “make up” – in the words of Superintendent Burke – its own rules.
399. SDPBC’s Facial Covering Mandate is in direct conflict with the Florida Constitution,
as well as F.S. § 1001.32(2), requiring SDPBC to manage, control,operate, administer, and
supervise the Palm Beach County School District in accordance with the provisions of Fla.
Const. Art. IX § 4(b) “except as expressly prohibited by the State Constitution or general
law.” (Emphasis added).
400. The State Board of Education is the chief policymaking and coordinating body of
94
public education in Florida, not SDPBC, as a matter of law.
401. SDPBC lacks authority to simply “make up” its own rules that are prohibited by
Florida’s Constitution, Florida Statutes, and DOH Rule 2.
402. SDPBC’s Facial Covering Mandate violates DOH Rule 2 which does not permit
SDPBC to force students to wear facial coverings.
403. There is a present bona fide dispute regarding the Plaintiffs’ rights and obligations
under the Facial Covering Mandate.
404. WHEREFORE Plaintiffs (pursuant to F.S. § 86.011) ask the Court to declare that
the Facial Covering Mandate (and the enforcement thereof) is void because (i) it exceeds
SDPBC’s rulemaking authority, and (ii) it is not supported by logic or the necessary facts
and has been adopted without thought or reason or is irrational, or is being applied in an
arbitrary or capricious manner; and (iii) grant all such other relief as the Court deems
necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, and award Plaintiffs their attorney's
fees and costs.
COUNT II: VIOLATION OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EMERGENCY RULE

64DER21-15
herein.
406. On August 6, 2021, the Florida Department of Health promulgated Emergency Rule 64
DER21-12 (“DOH Rule 1”).
407. In relevant part, DOH Rule 1 states, “[s]tudents may wear masks or facial coverings as
a mitigation measure; however, the school must allow for a parent or legal guardian of the
student to opt-out the student from wearing a facial covering or mask.”
95
408. A parental opt-out is distinct from an application for a medical exemption or other
exemption.
409. SDPBC violated the DOH Rule when, at about 11:30 P.M. on August 18, 2021, it
enacted an emergency revision to School Board Policy 5.326. The revision eliminated the
parental opt-out provision to the Facial Covering Mandate. The revised policy allows
exemptions to the Facial Covering Mandate only for a very limited set of medical conditions.
By eliminating the parental opt-out provision, the Facial Covering Mandate violated DOH
Rule 1.
410. On September 22, 2021, the Florida Department of Health promulgated Emergency
Rule 64 DER21-15 (“DOH Rule 2”).
411. DOH Rule 2 repealed DOH Rule 1. However, it retains the requirement that school
districts give parents the option to opt their children out of having to wear facial coverings:
“Schools may adopt requirements for students to wear masks or facial coverings as a
student to opt the student out of wearing a face covering or mask at the parent or legal
guardian’s sole discretion.” Therefore, nothing substantive has changed on this matter, and
SDPBC’s Facial Covering Mandate continues to violate DOH Rule 2 by not having a parental
opt-out.
412. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs (pursuant to F.S. § 86.011) ask the Court to declare that
the Facial Covering Mandate (and the enforcement thereof) is void because it violates
DOH Rule 2. Plaintiffs also ask this Court to grant Plaintiffs all such other relief as the
Court deems necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, and award Plaintiffs their
attorney's fees and costs.
96
COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION BASED UPON THE
VIOLATION OF FLORIDA’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY
herein.
414. The Facial Covering Mandate, and the enforcement thereof, is unconstitutional, both
facially and as-applied to the Plaintiffs because it violates the Privacy Clause of Art. I § 23 of
the Florida Constitution.
415. Florida’s constitutional right to privacy reads simply: “Every natural person has the
right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life except
as otherwise provided herein.” Fla. Const. Art. I. § 23.
416. The Facial Covering Mandate implicates the right to privacy and is presumptively
unconstitutional. Green, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 8634 at *15 (Holding that mask mandates are
presumptively unconstitutional under Florida Supreme Court precedent); See N. Fla. Women's
Health & Counseling Servs., Inc., 866 So. 2d at 625, n.16 (“The legislation is presumptively
unconstitutional . . . the State must prove that the legislation furthers a compelling State
interest through the least intrusive means”); But see Machovec v. Palm Beach Cty., 310 So. 3d
941, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); But see Machovec v. Palm Beach Cty. (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. July
27, 2020) (Case No. 2020CA006920AXX).
417. To withstand strict scrutiny, the Facial Covering Mandate must be necessary to promote
a compelling governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest. See
State v. J.P., 907 So. 2d at 1110; See Gainesville Woman Care, 210 So. 3d at 1246; See N. Fla.
97
418. SDPBC cannot show that the Facial Covering Mandate withstands strict scrutiny
because of the myriad reasons shown above: the harm that facial coverings cause the Minor
Children Plaintiffs (and children in general); and the questionable efficiency of facial
coverings in stopping the spread of COVID-19.
419. The Facial Covering Mandate is not the least restrictive means – nor is it narrowly
tailored – to achieve a compelling governmental interest.
420. Furthermore, Machovec v. Palm Beach Cty. (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. July 27, 2020) (Case No.
2020CA006920AXX) (“Machovec I”) and Machovec v. Palm Beach Cty., 310 So. 3d 941 (Fla.
4th DCA 2021) (“Machovec II”, which affirmed Machovec I on appeal) are distinguished here.
Both of those cases held that mask mandates do not implicate the right to privacy and that they
must be reviewed under the rational basis test instead of under strict scrutiny. They are
distinguished for two reasons.
421. First, those Courts held that Palm Beach County’s mask mandate did not implicate the
Florida constitutional right to privacy precisely because they disagreed with the plaintiffs’
assertions that masks are medical devices and that a government policy requiring them to wear
masks subjected them to an experimental treatment. The plaintiffs in those cases argued that
their right to privacy was infringed only because the government compelled them to undergo a
“medical experiment”; they pigeonholed their privacy argument in that way, something that
the Plaintiffs here do not do. Evidence of this pigeonhole is found in the Machovec plaintiffs’
Complaint68 and appeal.69 Both Machovec I and Machovec II rejected the Machovec plaintiffs’
68
Machovec I, Plaintiffs’ Amd. Compl. And Mot. for Inj. Relief, ¶¶ 68-73 and 116-119 (treating the right to privacy
and the medical device argument synonymously).
69
The Machovec plaintiffs once again treated the right to privacy and the medical device argument synonymously in
their initial appellate brief to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. Furthermore, Machovec II characterized their
privacy argument that way: “Appellants challenged EO-12 as an unconstitutional infringement on their right to
privacy. The trial court upheld the mask ordinance…In the instant appeal, Appellants argue that ‘[r]equiring the
general population to use face coverings abridges the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment’ and,
98
privacy argument precisely because they rejected the medical device argument.70 In this case,
the Plaintiffs do not pigeonhole their privacy argument to medical devices or medical
experimentation. They argue that facial covering mandates implicate – and violate – the right
to privacy whether or not facial coverings are medical devices.
422. Second, Green v. Alachua Cty., 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 8634 (Fla. 1st DCA June 11,
2021) was decided after both Machovec cases. Green held that facial covering mandates
implicate the right to privacy and are presumptively unconstitutional. Id. at *15. Green
certified conflict with Machovec II. Id. at *15 n. 5. Green applies Florida case law on the right
to privacy more accurately than Machovec I and Machovec II. Very importantly, Green’s
holding applies whether or not facial coverings are medical devices. Green is persuasive
authority and should decide this case in Plaintiffs’ favor.
the Facial Covering Mandate (and the enforcement thereof) violate Fla. Const. Art. I. §
23. Plaintiffs also ask this Court to grant Plaintiffs all such other relief as the Court deems
fees and costs.
COUNT IV: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION BASED UPON THE

VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SUBSTANTIVE
DUE PROCESS
herein.
accordingly, the trial court erred in analyzing Appellants' challenge to the ordinance by ‘rational basis review’ rather
than ‘strict scrutiny.’ They request remand for a new ‘strict scrutiny’ review.” Machovec II, 310 So. 3d at 943.
70
Machovec II, 310 So. 3d at 946-47.
99
425. The Florida Constitution guarantees that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law.” Fla. Const. Art. I § 9.
426. A government policy violates the due process clause when it infringes upon a
fundamental right without withstanding strict scrutiny.
427. The right to privacy is a fundamental right. Gainesville Woman Care, 210 So. 3d at
1246; N. Fla. Women's Health & Counseling Servs., Inc. v. State, 866 So. 2d 612, 625 n. 16
(Fla. 2003); Green, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 8634 at *5.
use of the least intrusive means). Gainesville Woman Care, 210 So. 3d at 1246; N. Fla.
429. Forcing children to wear facial coverings implicates their right to privacy. See the
paragraphs above on The Florida Constitution’s Right to Privacy.
430. Therefore, facial covering mandates (like SBPBC’s) must withstand strict scrutiny.
431. Facial covering mandates cannot withstand strict scrutiny because of the myriad
reasons shown above: the harm that facial coverings cause to children and to people in general;
and the questionable efficiency of facial coverings in stopping the spread of COVID-19.
432. The Facial Covering Mandate is not the least intrusive/restrictive means – nor is it
narrowly tailored – to achieve a compelling governmental interest.
100
433. Even if the rational basis test were the appropriate constitutional standard instead of
strict scrutiny (which is not the case), the Facial Covering Mandate is not rationally related to a
legitimate government interest for the myriad reasons shown above: the harm that facial
coverings cause the Minor Children Plaintiffs (and children in general); and the questionable
efficiency of facial coverings in stopping the spread of COVID-19.
434. Therefore, the Facial Covering Mandate violates the Due Process Clause under both
the strict scrutiny and rational basis tests.
the Facial Covering Mandate (and the enforcement thereof) violates Fla. Const. Art. I. § 9.
Plaintiffs also ask this Court to grant Plaintiffs all such other relief as the Court deems
fees and costs.
COUNT V: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION BASED UPON THE VIOLATION

OF THE PARENTS’ BILL OF RIGHTS
herein.
437. The Parents’ Bill of Rights is codified as F.S. §§ 1014.01 – 1014.06.
438. F.S. § 1014.03 states, “Infringement of parental rights. —The state, any of its political
subdivisions, any other governmental entity, or any other institution may not infringe upon the
fundamental rights of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental
health of his or her minor child without demonstrating that such action is reasonable and
necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that such action is narrowly tailored and is
not otherwise served by a less restrictive means.”
101
439. F.S. § 1014.04(4) provides, “A parent of a minor child in this state has inalienable
rights that are more comprehensive than those listed in this section, unless such rightshave
been legally waived or terminated. This chapter does not prescribe all rights to a parent of a
minor child in this state. Unless required by law, the rights of a parent or a minor child in this
statemay not be limited or denied.”
440. F.S. § 1014.04(1) further provides: “All parental rights are reserved to the parent of a
minor child in this state without obstruction or interference from the state, or any of its
political subdivisions, any other governmental entity, or any other institution, including but
not limited to, all of the following rights of a parent of a minor child in this state:
(a) The right to direct the education and care of his or her minor child.
(b) The right to direct the upbringing and the moral or religious training of his or
her minor child.
(c) The right, pursuant to S. 1002.20(2)(b) and (6), to apply to enroll his or her
minor child in a public school.
(d) The right to make health care decisions for his or her minor child, unless
otherwise prohibited by law.
441. The Facial Covering Mandate, and the enforcement thereof, by not permitting Plaintiffs
to opt out of the Facial Covering Mandate, violates F.S. §§ 1014.03 and 1014.04(1)(a) by
infringing on Plaintiffs’ right to direct the education and care of their children.
442. The Facial Covering Mandate, and the enforcement thereof, by not permitting Plaintiffs
to opt-out of the Facial Covering Mandate, violate F.S. §§ 1014.03 and 1014.04(1)(e) by
infringing on Plaintiffs’ right to make health care decisions for their children.
443. SDPBC cannot demonstrate that the infringements upon Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights
102
are reasonable or necessary to achieve any compelling state interest, or that such actions are
narrowly tailored and are not otherwise served by a less restrictive means.
the Facial Covering Mandate (and the enforcement thereof) violates the Parents’ Bill of
Rights. Plaintiffs also ask this Court to grant Plaintiffs all such other relief as the Court
deems necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, and award Plaintiffs their
attorney's fees and costs.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
445. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request relief as follows:
446. That judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs, against all named Defendants in and for
each and every count, respectively, in this Complaint.
447. That this Honorable Court issue a declaratory judgment declaring that the Facial
Covering Mandate, and the enforcement thereof, is null and void, of no effect, as:
(a) Ultra vires, exceeding the Defendant’s rulemaking authority;
(b) Violative of DOH Rule 2;
(c) Violative of the Florida constitutional right to privacy;
(d) Violative of the Florida constitutional right to substantive due process; and
(e) Violative of the Parents’ Bill of Rights.
448. Set aside and hold unlawful the Facial Covering Mandate, and the enforcement thereof,
and order SDPBC and its respective officers, agents, servants, employees, representatives, and
all other persons, firms and entities in active concert or participation with it, to remove all
disciplinary actions for violations of the Facial Covering Mandate from the Minor Children
Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated students’ disciplinary records;
449. Permanently enjoin SDPBC, and its respective officers, agents, servants, employees,
103
representatives, and all other persons, firms, or corporations in active concert or participation
with them, including law enforcement authorities and their agents and personnel, from
enforcing the Facial Covering Mandate;
450. Order any other actions appropriate to prevent further violations of Plaintiffs’
constitutional and statutory rights;
451. Retain jurisdiction of the case until SDPBC has fully complied with the orders of this
Court, and there is reasonable assurance that SDPBC will continue to comply in the future
absent continuing jurisdiction;
452. Award Plaintiffs’ costs and expenses for this lawsuit, including reasonable attorneys’
fees, as permitted by law; and
453. Award such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all issues so triable.
REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION
Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court expedite consideration of this action
pursuant to F.S. § 86.111, which authorizes the Court to “order a speedy hearing of an action
for a declaratory judgment” and “advance it on the calendar.”
DATED this 4th Day of October, 2021.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Alexander Bumbu

Alexander Bumbu, Esq.
Florida Bar Number 1024989
Staff Attorney
Pacific Justice Institute – Florida Office
1021 Ives Dairy Rd.
Bldg. 3, Ste. 115
Miami, FL 33179
104
(954) 682-3168
abumbu@pji.org
Counsel for Petitioner
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion was filed with
the Clerk of the Court this 4th Day of October, 2021, by using the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal.
Accordingly, a copy of the foregoing is being served on this day to all attorneys/interested parties
identified on the Portal Electronic Service List, via transmission of the Notice of Electronic
Filing generated by the Portal. I also certify that Defendant is being furnished a copy of the
foregoing document via service of process.
/s/ Alexander Bumbu
105
Exhibit A
9/30/21, 4:59 PM BoardDocs® Pro
Book School Board Policies

Section Ch. 5. Pupil Personnel

Title Student Protocols due to COVID-19

Code 5.326

Status Active

Adopted August 19, 2020

Last Revised August 18, 2021

Last Reviewed August 18, 2021

Prior Revised Dates ER 8/19/2020; 11/4/2020; ER 8/18/21
Policy 5.326 Student Protocols due to COVID-19

1. Purpose.
To facilitate the continuous operations of the District and protect the health, safety, and welfare of students by
adhering to COVID-19 District safety protocols.

2. Parent/Guardian Notification.
The District recognizes that parents and guardians are essential allies in its efforts to limit the spread of COVID-
19 on school property including school buses. The District will disseminate information about this Policy, including
student and family responsibilities, to students and families via email, social media, and on its website.
Upon returning to school buildings, school staff will implement a variety of strategies to inform students about
their duty to comply with the District’s safety protocols. This may include additional markings on hallway floors,
posters and other signage, designation of hand sanitizing stations, etc.

3. District Safety Guidelines.
a. All students must:
i. not come to school if ill including, but not limited to: symptoms of fever, cough, sore throat, diarrhea,
headache, body ache, shortness of breath, fatigue, loss of appetite and sense of smell, runny or stuffy
nose, sneezing, sore throat and other flu-like symptoms, or if someone in their household has tested
positive for COVID-19.
ii. self-screen at home prior to reporting to school. Parents and guardians are recommended to take
their child’s temperature prior to reporting to school and the student shall not report to school if they
have a temperature of 100.4 or higher. Students shall not report to school while using fever-reducing
medications.
iii. comply with all directives related to health and safety, including, but not limited to: usage and
passage through common areas and shared spaces.
iv. abide by social distancing guidelines, keeping a minimum of 3 feet apart where possible.
https://go.boarddocs.com/fl/palmbeach/Board.nsf/Public# 1/4
v. follow revised school procedures that may include, but not limited to: staggered arrivals and dismissal
times, after school care or before school care, limited classroom changes, limited movement
throughout the campus, enhanced sanitization, wearing of facial coverings, changes to school
cafeteria procedures, increased handwashing, riding the school bus, any school activity outside the
regular school day, and other changes that may be needed for health and safety.
vi. avoid congregating when moving throughout the campus.
vii. not share any school supplies, such as pens, pencils, devices, textbooks, etc.

viii. wear face coverings at all times. The District will provide up to 5 washable facial coverings per
student. Facial coverings should cover your nose and your mouth and comply with the state, local, or
federal health department recommendations. All face coverings (whether disposable or reusable)
must be made with at least two (2) but preferably three (3) layers of breathable material; fit snugly
but comfortably against the side of the face and be secured with ties or ear loops allowing the
students to remain hands-free. At this time, based on guidance from health authorities, neck gaiters,
open-chin triangle bandanas, and mesh material, valves or holes of any kind are not acceptable face
coverings. Please note facial coverings are in addition to, and not a substitute for, the required social
distancing. Exemptions or accommodations (including a plastic shield) to facial coverings must be
verified by a treating licensed medical physician as required by the ADA, or Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act and agreed to by a compliant 504 Team. Nothing within this policy is intended to
supersede School Board Policy 5.182 or any individual school’s dress code.
1. Facial coverings will not need to be worn when outside, after seated when eating or drinking as
outlined in District protocols that will be posted to the District website and approved by the
school principal or designee. Students must continue to maintain social distancing.
ix. assist with keeping their desks or workstations clean and clutter-free.
x. abide by separate guidelines for athletics and intramurals as established for COVID-19 by District
administration.

xi. During times of elevated communicable disease community spread, the Superintendent shall issue
periodic guidance and directives aligned with the recommendations of public health officials or
applicable government guidance and orders. During an outbreak of a communicable disease that can
be transmitted by casual contact or in a respiratory or airborne manner, the Superintendent’s
directives may include mandatory protocols, including but not limited to, physical distancing, facial
coverings, and/or other protective measures.
4. Responsibilities of Students and Families:
a. Student or student’s parent/guardian must self-report a positive COVID-19 test, for any member of the
household to a school administrator no later than the following school day. The school administrator will
alert their supervisor and District administration to make a determination on any necessary cleaning of
affected areas.
5. Protocols for Symptomatic or COVID-19 Positive Students. Students experiencing any symptoms consistent
with COVID-19 or who have received a positive diagnostic test for COVID-19 should not attend school, school-
sponsored activities, or be on school property until: (a)The student receives a negative diagnostic COVID-19 test
and is asymptomatic: or (b)Ten days have passed since the onset of symptoms or positive test result; the student
has had no fever for 24 hours and the student's other symptoms are improving: or (c)The student receives written
permission to return to school from a medical doctor licensed under chapter 458, an osteopathic physician licensed
under chapter 459, or an advanced registered nurse practitioner licensed under chapter 464.

6. Protocols for Students with Exposure to COVID-19. Students who are known to have been in direct contact
with an individual who received a positive diagnostic test for COVID-19 should not attend school, school-sponsored
activities, or be on school property until: (a) The student is asymptomatic and receives a negative diagnostic
COVID-19 test after four days from the date of last exposure to the COVID-19 positive individual: or (b) The
student is asymptomatic and seven days have passed since the date of last exposure to the COVID-19 positive
individual. (c) If a student becomes symptomatic following exposure to an individual that has tested positive for
COVID-19, the student should follow the procedures set forth in subsection (5), above.

7. Protocols for Students with Prior COVID-19 Infection. A student who has received a positive diagnostic
test for COVID-19 in the previous 90 days and who is known to have been in direct contact with an individual who
has received a positive diagnostic test for COVID-19 is not subject to the protocols set forth in subsection (6), so
long as the student remains asymptomatic. If a student with a previous COVID-19 infection becomes symptomatic,
the student should follow the procedures set forth in subsection (5), above. This subsection applies equally to
students that are fully vaccinated for COVID-19.
a. Any student who tests positive for COVID-19 must immediately provide administration with a list of
everyone with whom they have been in close contact outside of regular classroom contact, including while
riding the school bus and extracurricular activities (within 6 feet for more than 15 minutes). Staff will assist
younger students with their contact list.
b. Student’s name shall not be revealed when notifying other students' parents or guardians and members of
the school’s staff of a positive test.
c. If a student exhibits symptoms of COVID-19, as set forth in paragraph 3 (a) above, during the school day,
he/she will be sent to the school clinic. The school nurse will assess the wellness of the student to make the
recommendation if the student should be tested for COVID-19. School nurses may not test minor students
for COVID 19 without informed written consent from a parent or legal guardian.
8. Responsibilities Of Principals If A Student Tests Positive For Covid-19:
a. Immediately notify school supervisor to activate COVID 19 Protocols.

b. Request from the student a list of every student and staff member (outside the classroom or school
transportation) with whom they have been in close contact (within 6 feet for more than 15 minutes). The list
must be securely maintained.
c. After the Department of Health has finished the contact tracing investigation, the Department of Health will
notify parents, guardians of students or staff identified as exposed to a confirmed case of COVID-19 in the
school. The Department of Health will provide the principal with the list of the exposed students and school
staff with the returning day to school. The names of exposed students must not be revealed as prohibited by
FERPA (as confidential information).
9. Non-Discrimination. Students whose parents or legal guardians have an approved exemption under the ADA or
Section 504 exempting them or modifying the face mask requirement shall not be subject to any harassment or
discriminatory treatment, including but not limited to:
a. Relegation to certain physical locations:

b. Isolation during school activities: or
c. Exclusion from any school-sponsored events or activities.
10. ESE Students.
For students with an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP), upon the student’s return to school, a parent may
request an IEP meeting to discuss the impact of compliance with this policy.

11. Duration.
This emergency modification of this policy shall remain in effect for a period of no more than ninety (90) days
from the date of the adoption. The Superintendent may suspend/revoke/rescind portions of this policy based on
the updates/available information from the CDC, State, or local authorities regarding COVID-19 cases.


RULEMAKING AUTHORITY: Fla. Stat. §§ 120.81 (1); 1001.32 (2); 1001.42 (28).

Fla. Stat. §§ 1001.32(3); 1001.43 (1), (6) & (7); 1001.42(2) & (8); Fla. Admin.

Code Rule 64DER21-12
LAWS IMPLEMENTED:

HISTORY: ER 8/19/2020; 11/4/2020; ER 8/18/21

Exhibit B
9/29/21, 3:39 PM Facial Covering Guidance - The School District of Palm Beach County
The School District of

PALM BEACH COUNTY
The School District of Palm Beach County / News / What's New / August 2021 /
Facial Covering Guidance

Posted on 08/20/2021
As part of the District’s commitment to keeping you as informed as possible, this message is a
follow-up to an email that you received earlier today regarding facial coverings.
Out of an abundance of caution, and in a profound effort to mitigate the rapidly rising COVID-19
positivity rate in our community and on our campuses, School Board members approved Policy
5.326 Student Protocols due to COVID-19, making facial coverings mandatory for students in
District-operated schools.
The current policy will remain in place for up to 90 days. However, the Board will periodically
reassess the policy.
Parents and Guardians, please be assured that the District recognizes that there are strong
emotions and beliefs on both sides of the facial covering issue. The decision to make masks
mandatory is solely based on the health and safety of our students and staff and taking action that
the Board believes will mitigate transmission of the easily communicable COVID-19 Delta variant
among children and adults.
The Student Protocols due to COVID-19 Policy take effect on Monday, August 23, 2021. Opt-out
letters previously submitted by parents and guardians will no longer be honored.
honor
The only exception to this facial covering requirement is for students with ADA or 504 Plan
accommodations. If your child requires an exemption from the mask requirement due to a
https://www.palmbeachschools.org/news/what_s_new/august_2021/facial_covering_guidance 1/3
documented disability, please submit a requestThefor an

School accommodation
District of along with a note from a
PALM BEACH COUNTY
treating licensed medical physician documenting the need for the requested accommodation to the
school’s 504 coordinator.
As our goal is to meet the individual needs of all students, once letters are received by the school
from the child’s treating physician, the District will coordinate a meeting as soon as possible to
consider a facial covering exemption as an accommodation based on the medical information
provided and any additional relevant information. Our goal is to complete this process and meet
with parents and guardians in a timely manner.
If your child has an exemption from wearing a facial covering from the 2020-2021 school year on
record, the students will remain eligible for the exemption for the 2021-2022 school year.
At this time, all other students are expected to adhere to the facial covering requirement while on
District transportation and indoors on District property. Facial coverings are not required while
outside.
Principals and staff will continue to promote school-wide positive behavior support as we establish
facial covering compliance.
While we understand the hesitancy of some students to comply, we must make every effort to
attain compliance and drastically decrease direct exposure to the virus. If students choose to not
comply, the school will follow guidelines defined in the Student Code of Conduct: Policy 5.1812 (K-
5) and Policy 5.1813 (6-12).
Thank you for your continued partnership in education while maintaining safety and security in our
schools and community.
FULTON-HOLLAND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES CENTER

3300 FOREST HILL BOULEVARD
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33406
PHONE: (561) 434-8000, (866) 930-8402
NOTICE: Under Florida law, email addresses are public record. If you do not want your email addresses released in
response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone
or in writing. To report waste, fraud, corruption, or abuse, please call the Inspector General Hotline: (855) 561-1010.
Website by SchoolMessenger Presence. © 2021 Intrado

The School District ofCorporation. All rights d:60g:137u:76
PALM BEACH COUNTY
reserved.SchoolMessenger Sign In
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
9/29/21, 3:45 PM Updated Guidance Regarding COVID-19 Exposure - The School District of Palm Beach County
The School District of

PALM BEACH COUNTY
The School District of Palm Beach County / News / What's New / September 2021 /
Updated Guidance Regarding COVID-19 Exposure
Updated Guidance Regarding COVID-19

Exposure

Posted on 09/24/2021
Hello Parents and Legal Guardians,
While the District’s facial covering mandate remains in place, and principals are under direction to
uphold Board Policy, there is a COVID related update about which you are being notified.
The District would like to make you aware of a new Emergency Rule, signed by Florida’s Surgeon
General, that changes the protocol for students who are exposed to a positive COVID-19 case, but
are not displaying symptoms of the virus themselves.
Emergency Rule 64DER21-15, Protocols for Controlling COVID-19 in School Settings, mandates
that parents/guardians of healthy children identified as being exposed to COVID-19 while on
District property, but not showing any symptoms of the virus, now have options regarding whether
to keep the student home or continue to have their child attend school and all school activities
including athletics.
The Rule defines direct contact as “cumulative exposure for at least 15 minutes, within 6 feet.”
The District and the Florida Department of Health will continue to conduct contact tracing, and will
notify parents and guardians when a student has direct contact with an individual who is positive
for COVID-19.
https://www.palmbeachschools.org/news/what_s_new/september_2021/updated_guidance_regarding_covid_19_exposure 1/3
At that point the parent/guardian will have theThefollowing

School District ofoptions:
PALM BEACH COUNTY
1. Allow the student to attend school, school-sponsored activities, or be on school property,

without restrictions or disparate treatment, so long as the student remains asymptomatic: or
2. Quarantine the student for a period of time not to exceed seven days from the date of last
direct contact with an individual who is positive for COVID-19.
(b) If a student becomes symptomatic, following direct contact with an individual who has tested
positive for COVID-19, or tests positive for COVID-19, the procedures set forth for symptomatic or
COVID-19 positive shall apply.
Those procedures include:
Students experiencing any symptoms consistent with COVID-19, or who have received a positive
diagnostic test for COVID-19, shall not attend school, school-sponsored activities, or be on school
property until:
(a)The student receives a negative diagnostic COVID-19 test and is asymptomatic: or
(b)Ten days have passed since the onset of symptoms or positive test result; the student has had
no fever for 24 hours and the student's other symptoms are improving: or
(c)The student receives written permission to return to school from a medical doctor licensed
under chapter 458, an osteopathic physician licensed under chapter 459, or an advanced
registered nurse practitioner licensed under chapter 464.
Additionally, the Emergency Rule does not require that those who come in contact with a COVID-
positive individual be tested for the virus themselves.
This new protocol is effective immediately.
Please contact your child’s school with any questions or concerns.
Thank you.
FULTON-HOLLAND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES CENTER

3300 FOREST HILL BOULEVARD
The School District of WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33406

PALM BEACH COUNTY
PHONE: (561) 434-8000, (866) 930-8402
NOTICE: Under Florida law, email addresses are public record. If you do not want your email addresses released in
response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone
or in writing. To report waste, fraud, corruption, or abuse, please call the Inspector General Hotline: (855) 561-1010.
Website by SchoolMessenger Presence. © 2021 Intrado Corporation. All rights d:60g:137u:76
reserved.SchoolMessenger Sign In
Exhibit E
Notice of Emergency Rule
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Division of Disease Control
RULE NO.: RULE TITLE:
64DER21 -12 Protocols for Controlling COVID -19 in School Settings
SPECIFIC REASONS FOR FINDING AN IMMEDIATE DANGER TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR
WELFARE: Because a recent increase in COVID -19 infections, largely due to the spread of the COVID -19 delta
variant, coincides with the imminent start of the school year, it is imperative that state health and education authorities
provide emergency guidance to school districts concerning the governance of COVID- 19 protocols in schools.
Accordingly, pursuant to its authority to adopt rules governing the control of preventable communicable diseases in
public schools, see section 1003.22(3), Florida Statutes, the Florida Department of Health, after consultation with the
Department of Education, hereby promulgates an emergency rule regarding COVID- 19 protocols in public schools to
encourage a safe and effective in -person learning environment for Florida's schoolchildren during the upcoming
school year; to prevent the unnecessary removal of students from school; and to safeguard the rights of parents and
their children.
This emergency rule conforms to Executive Order Number 21-175, which ordered the Florida Department of Health
and the Florida Department of Education to ensure safety protocols for controlling the spread of COVID -19 in schools
that (1) do not violate Floridians' constitutional freedoms; (2) do not violate parents' rights under Florida law to make
health care decisions for their minor children; and (3) protect children with disabilities or health conditions who would
be harmed by certain protocols, such as face masking requirements. The order, which is incorporated by reference,
directs that any COVID- 19 mitigation actions taken by school districts comply with the Parents' Bill of Rights, and
"protect parents' right to make decisions regarding masking of their children in relation to COVID -19."
Because of the importance of in-person learning to educational, social, emotional and mental well-being, removing
healthy students from the classroom for lengthy quarantines should be limited at all costs. Under Florida law, parents
have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of their minor children
and have the right to make health care decisions for their minor children. HB 241, Ch. 202 1-199, Laws of Fla. In
furtherance of the Florida Department of Health's authority to adopt rules governing the control of preventable
communicable diseases-and because students benefit from in -person learning-it is necessary to immediately
promulgate a rule regarding COVID -19 safety protocols that protects parents' rights and to allow for in-person
education for their children. Removing children from school poses a threat to developmental upbringing and should
not occur absent a heightened showing of illness or risk of illness to other students.
REASON FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE PROCEDURE IS FAIR UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES: This
emergency rule is necessary in light of the recent rise in COVID- 19 cases in Florida and the urgent need to provide
COVID- 19 guidance to school districts before the upcoming school year commences. Given that a majority of schools
will resume in -person learning for the 2021-2022 school year within the next four weeks, there is insufficient time to
adopt the rule through non -emergency process.
SUMMARY: Emergency rule 64DER21 -12 sets forth the procedures for controlling COVID -19 in school settings.
THE PERSON TO BE CONTACTED REGARDING THE EMERGENCY RULE IS: Carina Blackmore, Florida
Department of Health, 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703, (850)245-4732.
THE FULL TEXT OF THE EMERGENCY RULE IS:
64DER21 -12 Protocols for Controlling COVID -19 in School Settings

(1) GENERAL PROTOCOLS AND DEFINITION. The following procedures should be instituted to govern the
control of COVID- 19 in public schools:
(a) Schools should encourage routine cleaning of classrooms and high -traffic areas.
(b) Students should be encouraged to practice routine handwashing throughout the day.
(c) Students should stay home if they are sick.
(d) Students may wear masks or facial coverings as a mitigation measure; however. the school must allow for a
parent or legal guardian of the student to opt-out the student from wearing a face covering or mask.
(e) For purposes of this rule. "direct contact" means cumulative exposure for at least 15 minutes. within six feet.
(2) PROTOCOLS FOR SYMPTOMATIC OR COVID -19 POSITIVE STUDENTS. Students experiencing any
symptoms consistent with COVID- 19 or who have received a positive diagnostic test for COVID- 19 should not attend
school, school -sponsored activities, or be on school property until:
(a) The student receives a negative diagnostic COVID -19 test and is asymptomatic; or
(b) Ten days have passed since the onset of symptoms or positive test result, the student has had no fever for 24
hours and the student's other symptoms are improving; or
(c) The student receives written permission to return to school from a medical doctor licensed under chapter 458.
an osteopathic physician licensed under chanter 459. or an advanced registered nurse nractitioner licensed under
chapter 464.
(3) PROTOCOLS FOR STUDENTS WITH EXPOSURE TO COVID -19. Students who are known to have been
in direct contact with an individual who received a positive diagnostic test for COVID- 19 should not attend school,
school -sponsored activities, or be on school property until:
(a) The student is asymptomatic and receives a negative diagnostic COVID- 19 test after four days from the date
of last exposure to the COVID- 19 positive individual; or
(b) The student is asymptomatic and seven days have passed since the date of last exposure to the COVID- 19
positive individual.
(c) If a student becomes symptomatic following exposure to an individual that has tested positive for COVID- 19.
the student should follow the procedures set forth in subsection (2). above.
(4) PROTOCOL FOR STUDENTS WITH PRIOR COVID -19 INFECTION. A student who has received a
positive diagnostic test for COVID- 19 in the previous 90 days and who is known to have been in direct contact with
an individual who has received a positive diagnostic test for COVID- 19 is not subject to the protocols set forth in
subsection (3). so long as the student remains asymptomatic. If a student with a previous COVID- 19 infection becomes
symptomatic, the student should follow the procedures set forth in subsection (2). above. This subsection applies
equally to students that are fully vaccinated for COVID -19.
(5) TESTING. Any COVID- 19 testing of minors at school requires informed written consent from a parent or
legal guardian.
(6) NON-DISCRIMINATION. Students whose parents or legal guardian have opted them out of a mask or face
covering requirement shall not be subject to any harassment or discriminatory treatment, including but not limited to:
(a) Relegation to certain physical locations;
(b) Isolation during school activities; or
(c) Exclusion from any school-sponsored events or activities.
Rulemaking Authority 1003.22(3) FS. Law Implemented 1003.22(3') FS. History-New.

THIS RULE TAKES EFFECT UPON BEING FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE UNLESS A LATER
TIME AND DATE IS SPECIFIED IN THE RULE.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Scott A. Rivkees, MD Date

State Surgeon General
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
State Board of Education Richard Corcoran
Commissioner of Education
Andy Tuck, Chair
Marva Johnson, Vice Chair
Members
Monesia Brown
Ben Gibson
Tom Grady
Ryan Petty
Joe York
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM: Richard Corcoran
DATE: April 14, 2021
SUBJECT: Planning for the 2021-2022 School Year
Florida continues to outwork and outperform the nation in the number of students receiving a high-quality
education in an in-person educational setting, and our success has been rooted in schools, districts and the
state implementing learned best practices and constantly relying on science and evidence.
Throughout the successful reopening of our schools for in-person instruction, we have consistently
provided families with the ability to make educational decisions that are in the best interest of their
children. Our efforts ensured parents had the ability to choose from multiple learning modality options for
the current school year, with the option to transition to new modalities when their child may have required
another option to ensure they were achieving adequate progress.
Florida has once again proven that one-size-fits-all policies do not meet the unique needs of individual
students or their families. Therefore, we should continue to make surgical - not sweeping - decisions to
mitigate large-scale educational disruptions as we are planning for the upcoming 2021-2022 school year.
As you reflect on the current school year and look ahead to 2021-2022, an example of a one-size-fits-all
policy are the mandatory face covering policies in some districts and schools. Upon reviewing the policies
of those districts with mandatory face covering policies, reviewing all districts relevant health data, and
factoring in such data points as the percentage of students learning in-person and the relative population
of a county (which is often synonymous with a county's community health resources), the data shows us
that districts' face covering policies do not impact the spread of the virus.
Face coverings are a personal decision and certainly families and individuals should maintain their
ability to make a decision that is unique to their circumstances. Broad sweeping mandatory face
covering policies serve no remaining good at this point in our schools.
Mandatory face covering policies inhibit peer-to-peer learning in our classrooms and they may also
unintentionally create a barrier for students and families who would otherwise choose in-person
instruction if such a policy were not in place. Such policies may also impede instruction in certain
cases, especially for students with disabilities and English language learners who benefit from
viewing a teacher's face and mouth.
www.fldoe.org
325 W. Gaines Street I Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 I 850-245-0505
Planning for the 2021-2022 School Year

April 14, 2021
Page Two
As we are planning to provide our students with robust summer programs and welcoming students
returning to school in the 2021-2022 school year, we expect more students to participate in face-to-face
instruction. Right now, our schools are safer than the communities at large. This safety record should only
increase next school year with the increased availability of vaccines.
With this return, we ask that districts, which currently are implementing a mandated face covering
policy, revise their policy to be voluntary for the 2021-2022 school year.
Florida' s districts and schools have done an incredible job implementing, learning and improving upon
mitigations and protections for our students, educators, school leaders and Florida's entire education
family. Without a doubt, our teachers and school leaders are heroes and they have led the nation in
reopening Florida's schools, while giving families broad choices for their child's education. Let us
continue to support those choices for our families as we ready ourselves for the 2021-2022 school year.
Exhibit H
Exhibit I
Exhibit J

Complaint Against The School District of Palm Beach County

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint Against The School District of Palm Beach County

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION

CASE NO.: ____________________

ALEXIA BOLT, individually and

JOHN SCHMITT and AMANDA

GARETH BRADLEY and

ERIK BANDY and COURTNEY

MARISA LOCKE, individually

SEAN ROOK, individually and as

KELVIN YU and JESSICA

DIANA MANALI, individually

ESTHER MAY SCIGLIANO,

JAMIE GRALA, individually and

JILL SANTAGATA, individually

KARLA MILLAN, individually

KIM SAVINO, individually and

ANA KAUFMANN, individually

LISA RUSSO, individually and as

MARTHA ROGGE, individually

NICOLE WALKER, individually

MICHAEL LEFEBVRE and

PHILLIP KEVIN YOUNG, JR.,

FRANK ANTONUCCI and

AMBER COSTA and

MICHAEL LEONE, individually

THE SCHOOL BOARD OF

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Facial Covering Mandate.

for their children?

public school district located in Florida.

2. Venue is properly in Palm Beach County because it is where the Defendant is

the Defendant or its purported agents within Palm Beach County.

3. Jurisdiction is appropriate in Circuit Court. The Circuit Court has primary

SDPBC's authority to resolve.

(the “Administrative Procedures Act" or the “Act”).

SDPBC to implement the Facial Covering Mandate in the first place.

letters on August 20.

He has been threatened with progressive discipline if he doesn’t comply, including

incrementally losing his privileges.

his face shield or a mask.

DOE 2 has already recovered from COVID-19, so he has natural immunity.

of the Facial Covering Mandate.

interfere with those rights.

claim on behalf of JOHN DOE 3 as his parent and legal guardian.

unjustifiably interfere with those rights.

their son as his parents and legal guardians.

JOHN DOE 5 as his parents and legal guardians.

unjustifiably interfere with those rights.

measures taken against him for breathing freely without a mask.

wear it for a minimum of six hours per day.

directly, substantially, and unjustifiably interfere with those rights.

actions directly, substantially, and unjustifiably interfere with those rights.

their daughter as her parents and legal guardians.

also just to have a minute to breathe.

interfere with those rights.

parent and legal guardian.

forced to wear a mask or receive the aforementioned disciplinary action.

substantially, and unjustifiably interfere with those rights.

on behalf of her children as their parent and legal guardian.

physical ailments while wearing a mask.

to develop social, language, and communication skills.

dishonored those letters on August 20.