In the case of Boardman Ohio Parents Org. v. Boardman Local Schools, N.D.Ohio No. 4:21-cv-02184 (Aug. 25, 2022), a federal district court held that the parents could not sue the school board over the parents’ claims of potential harm to their children due to the board’s masking policy because the harms were merely speculative and no attempts were made to qualify for an exception.
In this case, the parents argued that wearing masks would cause an impairment in their children’s educational experience, diminished communication skills, and detrimental effects to the body from prolonged exposure to low oxygen levels. In response, the school board argued that the parents’ general claim of risk associated with mask wearing was not enough to sue over, and that there was an exception to the policy in place that the parents did not utilize. The federal district court agreed with the school board.
In support of its decision in favor of the school board, the federal district court explained that the parents’ claims of harm were merely speculative and the parents did not show that the children had a substantial risk of harm, in fact, the parents did not show the likelihood of harm at all. The federal district court further explained that the mask policy allowed exceptions for health or developmental reasons, but the parents were not denied an exception nor even sought an exception.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.