Four Approaches to the Current School Masking Order

Over the past three days, 4 distinct approaches have formed to addressing the school masking orders. I encourage you to consider these and choose the best approach(es) for your children.

  1. Send in an ‘Exception” Note

PennRidge School District in Bucks County proposed something yesterday that I hadn’t originally thought was viable.

The District is encouraging exception notes being sent in to the district so that children do not have to wear masks.

Please note that while the preferred legal term is “exemption” the Department of Health has curiously used the term “exception” in respect to mask requirements.

Here’s a link to the order.

PennRidge has a great approach.

In writing a law, the Pennsylvania General Assembly knows the process and has competent legal counsel to assist them. Basically if you write a law, the entire enforcement mechanism should be thought out and explicitly spelled out. Whenever possible, the enforcement of a law should be based on existing enforcement mechanisms, or at least very similar to existing enforcement mechanisms.

Once again, the Wolf Administration has put words on paper with no thought as to what is going to happen next.

The “exception” system created by this order is not consistent with anything already in existence. It is broader than the Americans with Disabilities Act and covers non ADA situations. It is entirely something new, which means that past legal decisions don’t necessarily apply and current existing legal programs don’t necessarily cover it.

This “exception” system DOES NOT require a doctor’s note. It DOES NOT allow a school system to get medical information or take any steps to verify a medical exception.

There is also a very low, vague baseline for getting a medical exception. Here’s the language:

      [An exception is permitted]

If  wearing  a  face  covering  would  either  cause  a  medical condition,  or exacerbate  an  existing  one,  including  respiratory issues  that  impede breathing,  a  mental  health  condition  or  a  disability.    

All masks impede breathing, that’s a medical condition. It’s also the point of a mask. I also believe that for many children wearing a mask there are anxiety issues that accompany it.

So, there is absolutely a basis to seek an exception.

Here’s the problem the schools have in exceptions:

What legal standards and precedents do the schools have to evaluate exceptions? Because this is something new, there are none.

If an exception is denied, who reviews it? It’s not clear because this is something new and broader than the ADA.

If a school denies the exception, can it face liability? I have no idea, because this is something new. This is a good conversation for school board members to have with their solicitors.  

Can a school board be cited under the Department of Health Order for denying an exception? Arguably yes. Violations of Department of Health Orders are enforceable by “anyone” filing a summary criminal citation. If a school district fails to allow an exception under the Department of Health Order, they are in violation of the order and could be taken before the local magisterial district judge to face a fine of up to $300.

So, consider sending in a parents note stating:

            Please except my child from wearing  a  face  covering  as it would  either  cause  a  medical condition,  or exacerbate  an  existing  one,  including  respiratory issues  that  impede breathing,  a  mental  health  condition  or  a  disability.    

              Under the terms of the order, that is literally all that is required to get an exception.

2. Be Prepared to Face Discipline

Thankfully, Pennsylvania has approached school discipline similarly to criminal law. That means that students in discipline proceedings  have many (but not all) of the same rights as a defendant in a criminal case.

Under 22 Pa. Code § 12.6, a school board must publish a discipline policy- usually as part of the student handbook. While schools are given broader discretion in terms of defining offenses than in criminal court, an offense must nevertheless have some basis in the policy.

A school district (or administrator) cannot create a new offense without reasonable advance notice to a student. If a particular level of discipline is proposed in the handbook, that handbook must be followed. An administrator cannot throw out the handbook and create something new. If a change to disciplinary policy is going to occur, it must come from the school board and reasonable advance notice must be given to the students.

Several parents have reported to me that their school districts DO NOT have a discipline policy for unmasked students. That is a problem for the school district.

Keep in mind the following:

  • There is no right to a hearing when a student is placed in detention.
  • A student and parent have a right to advance notice of a suspension if the suspension period is 3 or fewer days, but no right to a hearing. Advance notice may be waived if there is a safety or health issue.
  • Suspensions of more than 3 and no more than 10 days are subject to an informal hearing requirement. 22 Pa. Code § 12.8. Parents and students must be notified reasonably in advance in writing of the hearing and its substance.

I have seen a number of cases in which the notice is given by phone an hour or so in advance with vague information about the purpose of the hearing. This is unacceptable.

I have also seen cases in which an administrator who took part in the discipline process acts as the decisionmaker for the informal hearing. This is also unacceptable. The decisionmaker should be at the very least an administrator who is not involved in the discipline process and who does not know the student and is not good friends with the school faculty involved. I’ve also seen too many cases in which the decisionmaker reviews the case with other school administrators outside the presence of the student. This is an ex parte communication and should not occur. The decisionmaker should have no substantive information about the situation until the informal hearing. A student may present witnesses. There are also legal questions as to what extent the school may rely on hearsay and to what extent live witnesses are required.

  • A suspension of more than 10 days is treated the same as an expulsion. In that case, a formal hearing must be provided. The hearing will be on the record. A qualified hearing examiner should run the hearing. Many evidence rules and rules of court procedure will apply.  The school board will have to make the final decision. These decisions are reviewable by your local county court of common pleas.

Some schools have stated that unmasked students will be placed in “quarantine rooms.” While such a decision may be permissible short term, all children are entitled to equal learning opportunities within a school district under federal law. If this “quarantine room” system does not provide equal educational opportunities, there are several potential legal actions that could be filed.

Unless a student or parent becomes disruptive, criminal charges are very unlikely. Many County District Attorneys have stated that they will not enforce these types of orders.

District Attorney Dave Sunday from York County has issued a new memo stating that York County will not enforce the new masking order in criminal court.

As the only clear way of enforcing this order is through summary criminal citations, this statement is significant.  

Mr. Sunday has strongly stood up for citizen’s rights since the beginning of the pandemic. York County is lucky to have him and he’s definitely someone to watch in Pennsylvania politics.

Other District Attorneys very likely feel the same and have issued similar statements about prior orders, but this is the first public statement that I’ve seen on the new order. If you have contact with your DA, you may wish to encourage them to issue a similar statement.

3. Keep Lobbying the School Board

I’ve thankfully heard from about 15 school board members from throughout Pennsylvania who are going to stand up for their authority to make local decisions about masking.

      One school district superintendent in Berks County is refusing to follow the Department of Health Order until there has been a vote by the school board.

Another school district in Schuylkill County has resolved to ignore the order and continue to follow their prior decision to keep masks optional.

      Hopefully other schools are following suit. All school board members need to realize that voting to follow this order is a vote to give up your decision making power indefinitely. Even if you support masking, giving up your decision-making power is a bad, bad idea. It is absolutely possible for a school board to say no to the Governor’s order, but still require masking on the school board’s terms. Giving up your power now, sets precedent for future situations. A school board should not want an outside agency dictating how their schools operate.  

      While I believe that masking should be the decision of the parent, I think there is a very good chance that courts will ultimately come to the conclusion that school boards can require masking as long as there is a reasonable specific end to the masking. There will likely continue to be a debate about what is reasonable and what is not.

      Bottom line: Encourage your school board to stand up for their authority to make decisions. The Pennsylvania Constitution gives school districts a tremendous amount of power to determine their own operations. Those operating decisions should be based on local virus conditions, the students, staff and resources of the district. Harrisburg ethically and legally should stay out of it. School boards can reject the Department of Health order and still make their own decisions about masking.

4. Support the Lawsuit(s)

In the late afternoon of September 3, 2021, the first of the lawsuits about school masking was filed. The case is Corman, Jacob Doyle, et al., Petitioner v. Beam, A – 294 MD 2021. You can track the status of the case by going to the AOPC case search page and searching by docket number.

            I am aware of at least two other lawsuits that are in the works. With this case being filed, we’ll see whether additional lawsuits are filed or whether those parties join into this case.

            This case has been filed with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth Court is a special court that hears disputes involving Pennsylvania state agencies. As this case addresses a Department of Health order, it is appropriately before the Commonwealth Court.

            The Commonwealth Court has required DoH to respond by 9/8 and has set a hearing for 9/18 at 10 AM. The Commonwealth Court is more politically conservative than Pennsylvania’s other appellate courts.

            The hearing on 9/18 will be open to the public in some way. Most of the Commonwealth Court sessions are still being conducted by internet through WebEx. There should be a link available a couple days before the hearing. If the Court holds the hearing in person, it will be held in their building in Harrisburg.

            I have not seen this lawsuit yet. It is a petition for declaratory judgment. A petition for declaratory judgment is not seeking money damages, it is simply asking a court to determine whether a particular action is legal. This case is correctly filed and should move to a decision relatively quickly (weeks, not months).

            If things proceed as normal, the filed lawsuit should become publicly available on September 7. While there are a lot of arguments to be made, I do not believe that raising constitutional rights claims or claims that masking is unsafe are likely to be successful. I believe that the best arguments are likely to be that the Department of Health has limited powers, whereas school districts have very broad powers. The Commonwealth Court regularly makes decisions about the limitations of powers of state agencies and would be more comfortable in that area than in reaching constitutional or public health questions.

            There is a very good chance that I will be recommending that amicus briefs be filed and filing one myself. The feelings of the public will be something that the Commonwealth Court will end up taking into account in some way in terms of this decision. While Courts try and separate themselves from public sentiment, the reality is that is always comes into play. The best way to make your voice heard is by filing an appropriate amicus brief.

            I am recommending the following:

  1. If you are a member of a school board, have the board vote to authorize your solicitor to file an amicus brief. As I noted previously, this case isn’t directly about masking, it is about the authority of school boards to make decisions. Hopefully this is something that even school board members that strongly support masking can get behind. If your school board is going make masking mandatory, YOU should control the exemptions/exceptions and YOU should control when the masking ends. Keep in mind that giving up this power now, sets precedent for having limited power the next time there is a statewide issue.
  2. If you are a member of a parents group/PTO/PTA, etc. consider hiring legal counsel and having them file an amicus brief. While it is absolutely possible to file an amicus brief without an attorney, there are format and length limitations that must be complied with. If you submit a brief that does not meet the requirements, the Commonwealth Court can refuse to read it. You can find information on briefing requirements here:

  • Ask your local elected representatives to submit their own amicus brief.
  • Personally appear or log on to WebEx on 9/18 for the hearing. Showing public opposition to the Department of Health will have an impact on the Commonwealth Court.
  • Send a comment to the PA Department of Health.

While it is unlikely that this will work, this is free and only takes a minute. I would like to have the PA Department of Health receive thousands of comments stating that school decisions should be left to the schools.

Please consider taking one of these actions.

I will likely have more information and comments once I receive the newly filed lawsuit.

15 thoughts on “Four Approaches to the Current School Masking Order

  1. I just signed up for your blog, thank you, sent this to my daughter in York Co. She has already written an exception and is sending it. l. Her oldest enter Kindergarten this year. We both like learning & are understanding how words defiantly have meaning. We will keep our eyes on up & rising DA Sunday, too.


  2. Attorney Eric Winter, as always.. thank you for being on the forefront of this fight with all of us!
    Your unwavering stance to fight for what is right is compelling!
    Thank you for being a man of courage and integrity!


  3. Thank you for this!!! I am not sure if you can help, but my kids attend a private Christian school that is requiring dr notes for mask exemption/exception under the current doh order. Is this legal?


  4. I sent in exceptions for my children and was just informed from the superintendent that I needed to turn in a doctor’s note. Now what?


    1. There are several things you should do:

      1) Contact your school board members. Make them aware that the superintendent is going beyond the order and could expose the school to liability. Also point out that the school board is giving up their authority and is likely trapping the school in a bad situation. As this making order applies to all of Pennsylvania the Department of Health may keep it in place until Philadelphia’s virus spread substantially decreases. That may not happen this year.

      2) File a complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission- copy the school.

      3) File a Complaint with the Federal Department of Education- copy the school.

      4) Contact your local Magisterial District Judge’s office and see if they will accept a private summary criminal complaint from you. They should, but this is such an unusual situation that they may hesitate to do so and need to check with their counsel.

      5) Support the lawsuit which is going to a hearing next week.

      6) Give this information to other parents.


  5. A lot to think about, but bottom line is the freedom of parents to decide what is best for their own children. I know the subject is controversial but if there is any room for error I will vote parental rights first and foremost.


  6. Just a thought; Section 4 (A)4 of this order says “Provide reasonable accommodations for individuals who STATE they have a…..” It does not say for individuals who prove, establish, supply medical qualification, or anything beyond the individuals merely stating they have a condition which makes it unreasonable for them to maintain a face covering. It certainly does not say that reasonable accommodations be provided only after the School Entity has received whatever they deem as proof of a condition. So I guess the local school administrator is free to change the order as they see fit? Who is the one being ordered here? I believe that our District Attorneys and Law Enforcement Leaders should read a few sections of Title 18 and Title 23, Chapter 63 to a few of these officials who feel it is OK to disregard the “statements” of parents and children. They need reminded that ” Knowingly or Intentionally impeding the breathing of another person by blocking the nose and mouth” is a crime. “Fabricating, feigning, or intentionally exaggerating or inducing a medical symptom or disease…” and “Interfering with the breathing of a child” is considered Child Abuse if done intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. Or perhaps the enforcement of these obligations, along with compliance with all other civil rights, are suspended due to this order. That is how they are acting!


  7. Thank you for this, I sent an exception request but my children’s school is saying we need to request a 504 evaluation for disability.

    Prior to the order they were optional for masking.

    What’s your advice?


    1. I heard this for the first time late yesterday. This is insane.

      504 plans are appropriate for children that : (1) have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; or (2) have a record of such an impairment; or (3) be regarded as having such an impairment.

      The definition under the Department of Health Order covers conditions that are appropriate for a 504 and lots of other conditions as well. Here’s the definition:

      If wearing a face covering would either cause a medical condition, or exacerbate an existing one, including respiratory issues that impede breathing, a mental health condition or a disability.

      There is nothing in the DoH order that suggests that the only option to get an exception is a 504 plan. In fact, there’s nothing in the order that even allows a school to conduct a medical review (plenty of schools are doing this anyway.)

      If your child actually was appropriate for a 504 plan, this would likely have been discussed with you long before now. I do not recommend accepting a 504 review unless your child is truly appropriate for it.

      The proposed 504 review is clearly intended to scare parents into accepting masking requirements. It is not intended to resolve the situation.

      I recommend that you inform the school that you DO NOT want your child considered for a 504 plan, but do want your child considered for a masking order exception. They are two different things and use different criteria. There are a lot of children eligible for exceptions that are not eligible for a 504.

      I fully expect the school to deny the exception at that point, I would then recommend proceeding to file with the PHRC.


      1. As predicted the school does not wish to discuss the matter and again pointed to the 504 as the district policy. I’ll take your suggestion and file complaints. How can I support the upcoming lawsuit?


  8. I am missing my daughter’s concert tonight because I was told that the school has hired security guards and will not let me in without a mask. At last week’s concert I brought a copy of the masking order and told them I had a medical condition. We sat down, but then one of the teachers confronted us, and we declined the masks twice. I spoke with the superintendent today who told me that the order, according to her lawyer, is a non-opt out order. They are requiring documentation to prove my medical issue.


  9. I understand that a federal judge recently ruled out mask mandates my child attends one of the schools in east Stroudsburg area school district. The school has informed us that they will be going against this federal decision and keeping the masks anyway can you please get back to me on what I can do to stop this unreasonable nonsense. Enough is enough there is no evidence that these masks are working my children have gotten sick twice from the common cold and were sent home and couldn’t return till a doctor cleared them. The superintendent Mr. William riker is going against the federal decision and keeping the masks. The damage being done to the kids isn’t going to go away ! Cascading mental health. We are already seeing it. They said we can sign a mask exemption form and release medical records by signing a 504 plan. They should need this …this is wrong also and unlawful. And w an exemption you still must wear it on the bus and other close settings. What can we do? Thank you


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s