Federal Judge Says No To Blocking TESD Mask Mandate Based On Religious Rights Violation

TREDYFFRIN TOWNSHIP, PA — A lawsuit asking that Tredyffrin-Easttown School District's mask mandate be blocked immediately was short on evidence to show the mandate violates religious freedoms, a federal judge said, but the lawsuit was not dismissed.

Federal Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg this week refused the injunction blocking the mandate saying the four plaintiffs from Tredyffrin-Easttown School District had not shown sufficient evidence that the TESD mask mandate that follows the Pennsylvania Department of Health mandate violates their Constitutional right to religious freedom.

A Philadelphia law firm filed suit on Sept. 8 against Tredyffrin Easttown School District, challenging the District's mask mandate on the grounds that neither the state Health Department nor the School District has the authority to require mask-wearing in schools. The judge said in his Monday decision the lawsuit fails to show why a federal court should address that claim.

The lawsuit asserts an Aug. 31 decision by the TESD Board of Directors unfairly discriminates against conscientious religious objections to wearing face coverings by exempting only certain secular activities from the mask requirement.

The School District has said it mandated masks in school buildings in response to the Pennsylvania Department of Health order directing face coverings in schools. The order allows for certain medical exemptions to mask-wearing, but not religious ones.

The four TESD residents listed as plaintiffs in the suit are: Sarah Marvin, of Russell Road, Paoli; Andrew McLellan, Whitehorse Road, Malvern; Alicia Geerings, Laurel Lane, Wayne, and David Goveranti of Sugartown Road, Devon. Gary M. Samms will represented them for Obermayer, Rebbmann, Maxwell & Hippell, LLP.

To receive an immediate injunction, a plaintiff must show that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim, likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that an injunction is in the public interest, and that the balance of equities tips in their favor.

Goldberg wrote, "Because (the) Plaintiffs have not shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, (the) Plaintiffs are not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction. I will therefore deny Plaintiffs' Motion."

Case Testimony: How Lawsuit Plaintiffs Said Their Religious Rights Were Being Violated

According to a summary of testimony in the case, plaintiff Sarah Marvin is a Christian and previously attended a Presbyterian church in Devon, where she is has been a deacon. Marvin recently left the church when it started requiring masks. Marvin explained that she does not share all beliefs with her church, and instead follows the Christian Bible.

Marvin told the court she believes people are made in the image of God and it, therefore, dishonors God to cover our faces. The only part of the body Marvin believes should not be covered is the head. Marvin stated that the Bible—specifically, one of the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians—instructs that face coverings dishonor God, though she did not name a specific book or verse. Marvin said her opposition to face coverings was "not necessarily" a new belief, but acknowledged that, before the pandemic, no one had asked her to wear a mask.

Alicia Geerlings is also a Christian. She told the court she used to attend an Episcopal church in Wayne, but, like Marvin, recently left when the church started requiring masks. Geerlings believes the body is a temple and must not be harmed, and in her view, masks violate the prohibition on harming the body because they are unhealthy.

Geerlings explained that wearing a mask caused “maskne” (mask acne) and sinus infections for which she has been taking antibiotics, and her son has experienced severe headaches on the days he has worn a mask, according to court testimony.

On cross-examination, Geerlings acknowledged her son would voluntarily wear a mask
to enter a clubhouse to play squash, though he removed the mask while playing. Geerlings also agreed that communicable diseases are harmful and that God, in her view, would want us to protect ourselves from communicable diseases.

David Governanti does not belong to any organized religion, does not pray to God, and stated
that he could not pin his religious beliefs on a Bible or church. However, he does believe there is
"something else out there" and that it is not "just us," he told the court. Governanti said he arrived at his beliefs through research and forming his own opinions.

In this manner, Governanti came to believe that he must not harm his daughter, which, in his view, means he must not allow his daughter to wear a mask. Governanti has seen his daughter come home from school lethargic and suffering from headaches and anxiety, which he concluded was due to wearing a mask, he said in court.

Governanti acknowledged that his daughter went to school and wore a mask last school year, but Governanti said he objects to her wearing a mask this year because he now knows more about the harmful effects of masks.

Andrew McLellan believes that "Jesus … [is] the son of God" and "died for our sins," but he described his beliefs as less of a "religion" and more of a "spirituality," according to court records of his testimony. He told the court he does not go to church.

McLellan believes God intervened in his life to save him from certain trauma, and that
masks are a mockery of the gift of life because they cover what makes us human and show a lack
of gratitude to the creator. McLellan acknowledged that his son wears a helmet for football and a head covering for wrestling, the court testimony states.

Medical Concerns Heard

The case docket said two plaintiffs — Marvin and Geerlings — said that their children should receive a medical or disability exemption from the mask mandate. Marvin testified that her son has an auditory processing and speech-language disorder and the mask impedes his ability to communicate. Marvin also stated that wearing a mask has made her son feel nauseous and that he almost fainted, though she acknowledged her son does not have a diagnosed respiratory condition.

Marvin's son is in a vocational program that she believes is important to his future success given
that his disability prevents him from attending college, she told the court. Because Marvin’s son has opted to stay home from school rather than wear a mask to attend in person, she believes he is at imminent risk of being removed from the vocational program.

Geerlings would also like a medical exemption for her son because he experiences sinus issues and migraines. According to Geerlings, on the days her son has worn a mask, he has come home with severe headaches.

The judge's decision explained that PA Health Secretary Alison Beam's order specifically allows for medical exemptions to the mask policy. But before the District will consider a medical exemption, it requires a waiver of the student’s medical privacy rights under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) so that it can obtain information about the alleged medical condition.

However, none of the Plaintiffs seeking medical exemptions are willing to waive their children’s rights under HIPAA, the court records said. The lawsuit asserts a blanket waiver of medical privacy rights under HIPAA should not be required to obtain a medical exemption from the mask requirement.

The case record as filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania can be viewed here.

Defense attorneys for TESD are Deborah R. Stambaugh, Christina Gallagher, and Brian Richard Elias of Wisler Pearlstine, LLP.

There are currently other active cases in Pennsylvania Courts that challenge the PA Department of Health mask order and particularly challenging the authority of the state's Health Secretary to issue such an order.

Make sure you know what's happening in your town. Sign up to get Patch emails and don't miss any local news: https://patch.com/subscribe.