Copyright 2022 All Rights Reserved.

August 9, 2022

IDPH, State Board of Education sued over school mask, temperature, occupancy policy –

By John Kraft & Kirk Allen

On June 30, 2020

Clay Co., IL. (ECWd) –

James and Kali Mainer have filed a lawsuit naming Dr. Ngozi Ezike as Director of Illinois Department of Public Health, and Dr. Carmen I. Ayala, as Director of the Illinois State Board of Education, seeking a Declaration that the health regulations issued in the 63-page Directive on wearing face-coverings, temperature checks, and 50-person limit be declared unlawful.

There is also a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order seeking to restrain defendants IDPH and ISBE from implementing said Directives against Plaintiffs, which include: “Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order immediately enjoining Defendants from enforcing inside a school building their face-mask requirement, temperature check requirement, and limitation on groups of more than 50 people, against the Plaintiff’s minor children.”

The lawsuit alleges defendants have exceeded their authority in issuing these mandates, and that they are unlawful as well as arbitrary and capricious, and unreasonably applied to school buildings.

The Hearing on the TRO is scheduled for July 2, 2020, at 1:00 p.m. in the Clay County Courthouse.

Relief requested from the Verified Complaint:

  • Declare the health regulation issued in the Directive requiring Plaintiff’s children to wear a face-covering inside a school building for the purpose of trying to prevent the spread of COVID-19 or any other infectious disease is unlawful;
  • Declare the health regulation issued in the Directive mandating Plaintiff’s children to submit to a temperature check before entering inside a school building for the purpose of trying to prevent the spread of COVID-19 or any other infectious disease is unlawful;
  • Declare the health regulation issued in the Directive mandating Plaintiff’s children to not congregate in a group of more than 50-persons inside a school building for the purpose of trying to prevent the spread of COVID-19 or any other infectious disease is unlawful;
  • Declare the health regulation issued in the Directive mandating Plaintiff’s children to wear a face-covering inside a school building while at the same time not mandating face coverings inside a church building is arbitrary and capricious and hence unlawful;
  • Declare the health regulation issued in the Directive mandating Plaintiff’s children to submit to a temperature check inside a school building while at the same time not mandating a temperature check inside a church building is arbitrary and capricious and hence unlawful;
  • Declare the health regulation issued in the Directive mandating Plaintiff’s children not congregate in a group of more than 50-persons inside a school building while at the same time not mandating the same inside a church building is arbitrary and capricious and hence unlawful;
  • An award of costs and other such relief as this Court deems to be equitable and just
  • Find Plaintiffs have a right to insist any rule-making of the ISBE and IDPH be lawful and not arbitrary and capricious;
  • Find Plaintiffs are irreparably harmed each and every moment their minor children are subjected to these rules within the Directive;
  • Find and Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to protect their minor children’s rights against these unlawful rules beyond injunctive relief.
  • Find and determine Plaintiffs have a likelihood of success on the merits;
  • Entering a permanent injunction ordering the Defendants from enforcing the aforementioned rules from this date forward;
Verified Complaint
Verified Motion
Notice of Hearing

SHARE THIS

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print

RELATED

7 Comments
  • Stacy
    Posted at 12:41h, 30 June

    THANK YOU for this! I only wish the restraining order included all minor children in IL or I may need to file my own lawsuit bacause my 3 children will NOT be subjected to this and the Bailey suit has proven how long these lawsuits can take, especially with a state Government that likes to play dirty. This must be thrown out before my kid’s school starts in mid August. They have missed out on enough of of their education due to Covid. ENOUGH!!

  • Lyn P
    Posted at 13:42h, 30 June

    Remedy for all affected starts with a ruling of same for a few. Bring it.

  • Deborah Blaylock
    Posted at 18:15h, 30 June

    Well I sure hope the teacher unions stands up also. And why don’t you want to restrict the spread of COVID. Fall winter is bad enough the kids passing sh** back and forth. The teachers don’t want to carry
    It home to their kids or elderly. Immune compromised family members. Sure hope this comes back on the ones that think they don’t have to be safe.

    • Stacy
      Posted at 21:46h, 30 June

      I know a lot of teachers who are against these restrictions and recognize they are not feasible. This virus is proving to not spread among children the way it does among adults per the American Academy of Pediatrics. Children need an education, period and that won’t happen with these unrealistic restrictions. They’ve already lost 1/4 of the last school year. Here is what the AAP has to say in case you are interested:

      Policy makers must also consider the mounting evidence regarding COVID-19 in children and adolescents, including the role they may play in transmission of the infection. SARS-CoV-2 appears to behave differently in children and adolescents than other common respiratory viruses, such as influenza, on which much of the current guidance regarding school closures is based. Although children and adolescents play a major role in amplifying influenza outbreaks, to date, this does not appear to be the case with SARS-CoV-2.
      https://services.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/clinical-guidance/covid-19-planning-considerations-return-to-in-person-education-in-schools/

    • PK
      Posted at 23:11h, 30 June

      Given that safety protocol, your sure hopes are contradictory ma’am.

  • Joseph Popp
    Posted at 10:18h, 01 July

    There is a cost with these “guidelines that shall be followed:”
    Require use of face coverings;
    Prohibit more than 50 individuals from gathering in one space;
    Goodbye normal and healthy school experience.
    Why can thousands gather for a pride event in IL and kids can’t gather more than 50?
    And God knows, if in 10 to 14 days after that pride event if cases spike, it’s the kids that will get even more restrictions. Just like Houston after the thousands attended the Floyd funeral.

    The Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids), affiliated with the University of Toronto,, one of the world’s best hospitals for pediatric medicine; “Recommends full openings. No masks. No distancing. There is zero science for having children wear masks or have spacing. They have zero risk from the disease.”

    Are our schools proving that real science takes a backseat to fear and pseudoscience? The schools should stand up against this. These restrictions not only go against proven science, they are destructive to the mental and social growth of these kids. At the least the state & the schools are ignoring these kid’s civil rights when one group is allowed to gather in large groups while another cannot.
    And you are ignoring reality if you think these mask & distance mandates will not contribute to even more high school mental and social issues.

  • Sharon Abbott
    Posted at 00:59h, 01 August

    As a preschool teacher, I am also concerned about the distancing mandates. These are also psychologically damaging to children, especially the younger ones, who are just beginning to learn social skills like empathy, compassion, and learning to read facial expressions, It harms them when they cannot play together, hug each other, or have any kind of positive physical contact. The “social-distancing” impedes in the development of attachment among peers and with teachers who are also caregivers.

$