Summary
The Eleventh Circuit reviews a preliminary-injunction dispute involving Cobb County School District policies prohibiting mandatory masking during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court holds that the students retained standing, including after two students unenrolled, and that their claims were not moot. It reverses the dismissal of two students for lack of standing but affirms the denial of a preliminary injunction to the two remaining students because they had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on their ADA and Rehabilitation Act failure-to-accommodate claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether A.Z. and C.S. retained Article III standing after transferring from Cobb County public schools to private schools after filing suit.
- Whether all four students had standing to seek injunctive relief based on the alleged ongoing refusal to consider their requested accommodations individually.
- Whether the students' claims became moot because of subsequent changes in circumstances and COVID-related guidance.
- Whether a categorical ban on mandatory masking automatically establishes a Title II ADA or Section 504 failure-to-accommodate claim without proof of the other elements of the claim.
- Whether B.B. and L.E. were entitled to a preliminary injunction when the school district's existing accommodations had enabled them to attend in-person school as often as their health allowed.
Holdings
- A.Z. and C.S. did not lose standing when they unenrolled from Cobb County schools after filing suit. Standing is assessed when the complaint is filed, and their damages claims based on past discrimination remained live.
- All four students had standing to seek injunctive relief because, when they filed suit, they alleged an ongoing denial of meaningful access to in-person education through the school district's refusal to consider requested accommodations, including masking, on an individualized basis.
- The students' claims were not moot because they continued to seek damages and injunctive relief requiring the school district to change its policy and consider requested accommodations individually.
- A plaintiff challenging a blanket ban on an accommodation may satisfy the reasonableness element by showing that the defendant failed to conduct an individualized inquiry, but that showing does not automatically establish the entire failure-to-accommodate claim. The plaintiff must still satisfy the claim's other requirements, including necessity.
- B.B. and L.E. were not entitled to a preliminary injunction because the district court did not clearly err in finding that the school district's existing accommodations had been largely effective and that the students were therefore unlikely to establish that mandatory masking was necessary.
Key quotations
“Post-filing events might well bear on mootness—but not standing.” (at 10)
“That’s a merits issue—one we address below.” (at 15)
“Title II’s other requirements—including necessity—don’t evaporate in the case of a blanket ban; a plaintiff must satisfy those elements all the same.” (at 24)
Factual background
The four students attended Cobb County public schools and had disabilities that made them particularly vulnerable to respiratory viruses, including COVID-19. After initially requiring masks, the Cobb County School District adopted a policy prohibiting schools from imposing mandatory-mask rules. The students requested masking and other COVID-related accommodations, but the district refused mandatory masking while providing other accommodations, including preferential seating, classroom disinfection, staggered transitions, and access to a less-trafficked bathroom. A.Z. and C.S. later transferred to private schools, while B.B. and L.E. returned to Cobb County schools and continued seeking accommodations.
Procedural history
The students sued the Cobb County School District and related officials while enrolled in Cobb County schools, alleging disability discrimination and seeking damages and a preliminary injunction. The district court initially denied preliminary relief, and the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded because the district court analyzed access to education too broadly rather than focusing on access to in-person schooling. On remand, the district court dismissed A.Z. and C.S. for lack of standing after they transferred to private schools and denied B.B. and L.E. a preliminary injunction on the merits. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the standing dismissal and remanded for consideration of A.Z.'s and C.S.'s claims, while affirming denial of preliminary relief to B.B. and L.E.
Remand instructions
Reverse the dismissal of A.Z. and C.S. for lack of standing and remand for the district court to address the merits of their claims. Affirm the denial of a preliminary injunction to B.B. and L.E.