UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

L.E., by and through their parent and next friend,

SARA CAVORLEY; B.B., a minor, by and

through their parent and next friend, ELIZABETH

BAIRD; A.Z., a minor, by and through their parent

and next friend, JESSICA ZEIGLER; and C.S., a

minor, by and through their parent and next friend,

TARASHA SHIRLEY,

Plaintiffs,

CHRIS RAGSDALE, in his official capacity as

Superintendent of Cobb County School District;

RANDY SCAMIHORN, in his official capacity as

a member of the Cobb County Board of Education;

DAVID BANKS, in his official capacity as

member of the Cobb County School Board;

DAVID CHASTAIN, in his official capacity as

member of the Cobb County School Board; BRAD

WHEELER, in his official capacity as member of

the Cobb County School Board; JAHA

HOWARD, in his official capacity as member of

the Cobb County School Board; CHARISSE

DAVIS, in her official capacity as member of the

Cobb County School Boar

d; LEROY TRE’

HUTCHINS, in his official capacity as member of

the Cobb County School Board; and COBB

COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO:

_____________________

OMPLAINT FOR

DECLARATORY RELIEF,

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND

DAMAGES

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 1 of 47

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Pediatric hospitalizations, deaths, and other long term negative health

consequences of COVID-19 are preventable when families, communities, and

schools collectively share responsibility to limit disease transmission. Plaintiffs

bring this action because the Cobb County School District (“District”), led by

Defendant Ragsdale and a majority of the Cobb County Board of Education

(“Board”), refuse to do their part to protect Plaintiffs and ensure their access to a

safe in-person learning environment.

2. Plaintiffs L.E., B.B., A.Z., and C.S. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) are

students with disabilities, enrolled in the District, who have underlying medical

conditions that make them susceptible to experiencing serious illness or death if they

contract COVID-19.

3. The nation’s health protection agency, the Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention (“CDC”), developed research-based guidelines to prevent the spread

of COVID-19 in schools, and the CDC guidelines are mirrored or endorsed by the

American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”), the Georgia Department of Public

Health (“GDPH”), and the Cobb & Douglas Public Health Department (“CDPH”).

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 2 of 47

4. The District previously endorsed and implemented protocols consistent

with CDC guidelines to prevent COVID-19 transmission in schools, even arguing

the importance of these protocols before this very Court in late April 2021.

5. In June 2021, Defendant Ragsdale reversed course, ending many of the

District’s COVID-19 safety protocols that the District defended as necessary to

protect students just a few weeks prior.

6. Since the start of the 2021-2022 academic year, the District has

willfully refused and consistently failed to implement policies and practices that

comply with current COVID-19 safety guidelines established by federal, state, and

local public health experts, policies which require a multilayered approach to reduce

virus transmission and risk.

7. The District’s current COVID-19 response jeopardizes the health and

safety of more than 110,000 individuals in the District, approximately 15,000 of

whom are students with disabilities, like Plaintiffs, as well as the District’s

employees and the entire Cobb County community.

Def.’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. For TRO, W.S. ex rel. Sonderman v. Ragsdale,

No. 1:21-cv-01560-TWT (N.D. Ga. Apr. 29, 2021) (ECF No. 5) (arguing the need

for a mask mandate and compliance with CDC guidelines given the severity of the

COVID-19 virus in the District).

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 3 of 47

8. Ignoring students, parents, and hundreds of medical professionals and

public health experts, the District has refused to modify its current policies and

practices to provide a safe in-person learning environment for Plaintiffs and other

students like them.

9. Because of the significant risks to Plaintiffs’ health and safety created

by the District’s ineffective COVID-19 response, Plaintiffs can no longer attend

school in-person.

10. The District has the resources, research, and experience to create a safe

and accessible in-person learning environment for Plaintiffs and other students with

disabilities that make them vulnerable to COVID-19.

11. Plaintiffs could attend school in-person if Defendants reasonably

modified their policies and practices to create a safe in-person learning environment.

12. Rather than using the known and available tools to mitigate the threat

of COVID-19 and protect Plaintiffs’ access to school services, programs, and

activities, the District has acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights to

inclusion, health, and education.

13. Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants for violating Title II of

the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 4 of 47

Act (“Section 504”), and Plaintiffs seek relief from this Court to ensure they receive

the educational services, programs, and benefits to which they are legally entitled.

JURISDICTION and VENUE

14. This action arises under Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et

seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. Plaintiffs’ claims

are authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 12133 and 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).

15. Jurisdiction in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal

question jurisdiction) and 1343 (civil rights jurisdiction). Declaratory relief is

authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, as an actual controversy exists within

this Court’s jurisdiction.

16. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and Local Rule

3.1B(1)(a) because Defendants maintain their principal office within this district in

Cobb County, Georgia, and the acts, omissions, and events giving rise to this action

occurred in this district.

17. This Court has personal jurisdiction of the parties under Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(k)(1)(A).

PARTIES

18. Plaintiff L.E. is a 13-year-old student enrolled in the seventh grade in

the District. L.E. was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (“AML”) as an infant.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 5 of 47

L.E. has undergone multiple rounds of chemotherapy, which has left his immune

system severely compromised. He is diagnosed with hypogammaglobulinemia and

receives weekly infusions in his abdomen to improve his immune system. The

District has identified L.E. as a student with a disability eligible for services and

accommodations. L.E. brings this action, by and through his parent and next friend,

Sara Cavorley.

19. Plaintiff B.B. is a 15-year-old student enrolled in the eighth grade in

the District. B.B. is diagnosed with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (“DMD”). He is

also diagnosed with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Attention Deficit-

Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”), and Anxiety. To treat DMD, B.B. requires

steroids which suppress his immune system. B.B. also has a weakened respiratory

system. The District has identified B.B. as a student with a disability eligible for

services and accommodations. B.B. brings this action, by and through his parent and

next friend, Elizabeth Baird.

20. Plaintiff A.Z. is a 7-year-old student enrolled in the first grade in the

District. A.Z. is diagnosed with Bronchiectasis, an airway clearance impairment, and

she has persistent asthma, chronic bronchitis, and recurring pneumonia. These

recurrent episodes of respiratory illnesses severely limit A.Z.’s breathing without

available medical care, medications, and treatments. The District has identified A.Z.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 6 of 47

as a student with a disability eligible for services and accommodations. A.Z. brings

this action, by and through her parent and next friend, Jessica Zeigler.

21. Plaintiff C.S. is a 14-year-old student enrolled in the ninth grade in the

District. C.S. is diagnosed with severe asthma and has a history of pneumonia and

upper respiratory infections. The District has identified C.S. as a student with a

disability eligible for services and accommodations. C.S. brings this action, by and

through his parent and next friend, Tarasha Shirley.

22. Defendant Chris Ragsdale is the Local Superintendent of the District

and the executive officer of the Board. Defendant Ragsdale is responsible for

implementing policy established by the Board and rules and regulations issued by

the state, pursuant to Ga. Const. art. 8, § 5, ¶ III; O.C.G.A. §§ 20-2-61(a); 20-2-109.

Defendant Ragsdale is responsible for the District’s acts and omissions, and he is

sued in his official capacity.

23. Defendant Randy Scamihorn is a member of the Board and is

responsible for the District’s management and control, primarily through

establishing policy, such as policies relating to infectious disease in schools,

pursuant to Ga. Const. art. 8, § 5, ¶ II; O.C.G.A. §§ 20-2-50; 20-2-61; Ga. Comp. R.

& Regs. 160-1-3-.03(2)(a). Defendant Scamihorn is sued in his official capacity.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 7 of 47

24. Defendant David Banks is a member of the Board and is responsible

for the District’s management and control, primarily through establishing policy,

such as policies relating to infectious disease in schools, pursuant to Ga. Const. art.

8, § 5, ¶ II; O.C.G.A. §§ 20-2-50; 20-2-61; Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 160-1-3-.03(2)(a).

Defendant Banks is sued in his official capacity.

25. Defendant David Chastain is a member of the Board and is

responsible for the District’s management and control, primarily through

establishing policy, such as policies relating to infectious disease in schools,

pursuant to Ga. Const. art. 8, § 5, ¶ II; O.C.G.A. §§ 20-2-50; 20-2-61; Ga. Comp. R.

& Regs. 160-1-3-.03(2)(a). Defendant Chastain is sued in his official capacity.

26. Defendant Brad Wheeler is a member of the Board and is responsible

for the District’s management and control, primarily through establishing policy,

such as policies relating to infectious disease in schools, pursuant to Ga. Const. art.

8, § 5, ¶ II; O.C.G.A. §§ 20-2-50; 20-2-61; Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 160-1-3-.03(2)(a).

Defendant Wheeler is sued in his official capacity.

27. Defendant Jaha Howard is a member of the Board and is responsible

for the District’s management and control, primarily through establishing policy,

such as policies relating to infectious disease in schools, pursuant to Ga. Const. art.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 8 of 47

8, § 5, ¶ II; O.C.G.A. §§ 20-2-50; 20-2-61; Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 160-1-3-.03(2)(a).

Defendant Howard is sued in his official capacity.

28. Defendant Charisse Davis is a member of the Board and is responsible

for the District’s management and control, primarily through establishing policy,

such as policies relating to infectious disease in schools, pursuant to Ga. Const. art.

8, § 5, ¶ II; O.C.G.A. §§ 20-2-50; 20-2-61; Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 160-1-3-.03(2)(a).

Defendant Davis is sued in her official capacity.

29. Defendant Leroy Tre’ Hutchins is a member of the Board and is

responsible for the District’s management and control, primarily through

establishing policy, such as policies relating to infectious disease in schools,

pursuant to Ga. Const. art. 8, § 5, ¶ II; O.C.G.A. §§ 20-2-50; 20-2-61; Ga. Comp. R.

& Regs. 160-1-3-.03(2)(a). Defendant Hutchins is sued in his official capacity.

30. Defendant Cobb County School District (“District”) is the public

school system of Cobb County, Georgia, under the control and management of the

Cobb County Board of Education, pursuant to Ga. Const. art. 8, § 5, ¶ I; O.C.G.A. §

20-2-50. The District meets the definition of a public entity under 42 U.S.C. § 12131,

and receives federal financial assistance under 29 U.S.C. § 794.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 9 of 47

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The COVID-19 virus and the Delta variant present ongoing risks

31. The COVID-19 virus is an infectious disease that has caused an

ongoing global pandemic, resulting in more than 691,500 deaths in the United States,

more than 25,757 deaths in Georgia, and more than 1,150 deaths in Cobb County.

32. Vaccines against COVID-19 are now available and are both highly

efficacious and effective against infection and symptoms; however, children under

the age of twelve are ineligible to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

33. Despite the availability of vaccines, COVID-19 continues to spread.

Since August 2021, Georgia has experienced a significant increase in COVID-19

cases, driven by the spread of the “Delta variant.”

34. On August 19, 2021, the Cobb County Board of Commissioners

declared a local state of emergency due to the recent surge of the Delta variant and

the high transmission rates in Cobb County. The state of emergency was extended

on September 17 through October 17.

35. As of September 20, 2021, 98% of Georgia patient specimens of

COVID-19 sent for testing were identified as the Delta variant. The Delta variant is

more dangerous than other variants because of its heightened transmissibility

between infected and noninfected persons.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 10 of 47

36. The greatest risk of Delta variant transmission is among unvaccinated

people, who are significantly more likely to contract and transmit the virus, including

children.

37. Only 54% of Cobb County residents are–as of the date of this filing–

vaccinated against COVID-19.

38. As of the date of this filing, Cobb County is considered an area of “high

transmission,” the CDC’s most severe category of transmission, and the COVID-19

transmission rate is approximately six times as high as it was in September 2020.

39. Between September 4 and 17, 2021, Cobb County reported 4,544 total

positive COVID-19 cases, which is a confirmed new case rate of 600 per 100,000.

40. Due to the Delta variant and the inability of children under twelve to be

vaccinated, pediatric cases of COVID-19 have increased.

41. Between September 9 and 16, 2021, 225,978 children contracted

COVID-19 in the United States, representing 25.7% of the weekly reported cases.

42. Georgia reported the eleventh highest number of cumulative COVID-

19 cases for children in the United States between September 9 and 16, 2021,

reporting 8,606 new cases in children

43. On September 23, 2021, the GDPH reported that Cobb County had

1,063 COVID-19 cases among children aged five to seventeen during the prior two

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 11 of 47

weeks. Compared to approximately the same two-week period in 2020, the fourteen-

day case rate among the same population of children was 1050% higher.

44. These numbers do not reflect all positive COVID-19 cases among

children and adolescents in Georgia. Although Georgia is undercounting positive

COVID-19 data across all age groups, the problem is the worst for children from

twelve to seventeen years old children, followed by children from five to eleven

years old.

45. As of the date of this filing, the reported case rate among K-12 aged

children in Cobb County is more than twice as high as the U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services’ “dark red” zone classification.

46. Children who contract COVID-19 are at risk for developing

Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C). Children ages 6-11 are

most likely to develop MIS-C, which occurs when multiple organs become inflamed,

including the heart, lungs, kidneys, brain, skin, eyes, or gastrointestinal organs.

These children often end up in the ICU. During the 2021 summer, MIS-C cases rose

exponentially as the Delta variant spread. Even children who contract mild cases of

COVID-19 are at risk for MIS-C.

47. As of the date of this filing, pediatric hospitalizations have recently

reached an all-time high since the beginning of the pandemic.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 12 of 47

48. Since March 2020, approximately one in four hospitalized children and

adolescents with COVID-19 has required intensive care.

49. Four children died in Cobb County from COVID-19 in August 2021.

Children with disabilities are at an increased risk for severe illness

50. Countless studies and public health experts confirm that the Delta

variant poses a more serious risk to children with disabilities and underlying medical

conditions, like Plaintiffs.

51. The rate of hospitalization, severe illness, and death from COVID-19

in children with underlying conditions, including asthma, obesity, heart disease,

cancer, chromosomal disorders, and congenital malformations, is significantly

higher than that of children with no underlying conditions.

52. According to the CDC, “[c]hildren with underlying medical conditions

are at an increased risk for severe illness compared to children without underlying

medical conditions.” The CDC defines “severe illness” from COVID-19 as when a

person needs hospitalization, intensive care, or the use of a ventilator to assist with

breathing, or the person may die.

53. In general,

children with severe COVID-19 may develop respiratory

failure, myocarditis, shock, acute renal failure, coagulopathy, and multi-organ

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 13 of 47

system failure. Some children with COVID-19 have developed other serious

problems like intussusception or diabetic ketoacidosis.

54. According to the CDC, underlying disabilities or medical needs that

place children at increased risk of “severe illness” from COVID-19 include “medical

complexity, with genetic, neurologic, metabolic conditions, or congenital heart

disease.” And “children with obesity, diabetes, asthma or chronic lung disease,

sickle cell disease, or immunosuppression can be at increased risk for severe illness

from COVID-19.” The CDC emphasizes that those who are immunocompromised

are more likely to get severely ill from COVID-19 and may not be fully protected

even when they are vaccinated.

55. Other types of disabilities can expose some individuals to an increased

risk of contracting COVID-19 or having an unrecognized illness, such as people with

limited mobility who cannot avoid close contact, people who have trouble

understanding information or practicing preventive measures on their own, and

people who may not be able to communicate symptoms of illness.

People with Disabilities, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (last

updated June 21, 2021),

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/humandevelopment/covid-

19/people-with-disabilities.html.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 14 of 47

56. Plaintiff children are among those individuals at increased risk of

severe illness, hospitalization, or death from COVID-19, and especially the Delta

variant.

COVID-19 transmission can be reduced for children in schools by following

guidance from epidemiologists and medical professionals

57. The risk of exposure to and transmission of COVID-19 in K-12 schools

is significant. At school, students spend long periods of time in proximity to one

another and school staff, resulting in frequent exposure to pathogens.

58. As of September 27, 2021, according to the COVID-19 Event Risk

Assessment Tool developed by the Georgia Institute of Technology, in Cobb County

specifically, the risk of being exposed to COVID-19 in a group of twenty-five

people, like in a classroom, is estimated to be 41%. For a gathering of one hundred

people, like in a K-12 cafeteria, the risk is estimated to be 88%. For a gathering of

500 people, like in a school assembly, the risk is estimated to be over 99% -- a virtual

certainty.

59. However, experts agree that it is possible to mitigate the spread of

COVID-19 in schools to allow students the benefit of in-person learning.

60. According to the CDC, students “benefit from in-person learning, and

safely returning to in-person instruction in the fall 2021 is a priority.” The American

Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”), the American Medical Association, the Infectious

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 15 of 47

Disease Society of America, and the American Academy of Family Physicians all

also strongly endorse return to in-person learning. According to the AAP, many

families with children with disabilities did not have adequate educational support

during remote learning, and educational disparities have worsened for children with

disabilities.

61. Public health authorities have been unambiguous and unanimous about

the need for implementation of appropriate public health mitigation strategies,

including universal indoor masking, to keep students safe during in-person learning.

62. While no single existing mitigation strategy is perfect at preventing

COVID-19 illness, the best protection for children in schools requires layered

mitigation strategies that include COVID-19 vaccinations, universal and appropriate

masking, physical distancing, improved ventilation, surveillance testing, symptom

screenings, isolation and effective quarantine measures, and contact tracing.

63. The CDC issued updated Guidance for COVID-19 Prevention in K-12

Schools on August 4, 2021 (“CDC guidelines”).

The CDC guidelines recommend:

Guidance for COVID-19 Prevention in K-12 Schools, CENTERS FOR DISEASE

CONTROL AND PREVENTION (last updated Aug. 5, 2021),

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/k-12-

guidance.html.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 16 of 47

a. Promoting COVID-19 vaccinations, as “vaccination among all eligible

students as well as teachers, staff, and household members is the most

critical strategy to help school safely resume full operations.”

b. Universal indoor masking “for all individuals age 2 years and older

including students, teachers, staff, and visitors, regardless of

vaccination status.” Further, “[p]assengers and drivers must wear

masks on school buses,” pursuant to CDC Order, 86 Fed. Reg. 8025-

01.

c. Distancing of “at least 3 feet of physical distance between students

within classrooms, combined with indoor mask wearing to reduce

transmission risk,” and “at least 6 feet between students and

teachers/staff, and between teachers/staff.”

d. Screen testing to identify infected people so that measures can be taken

to prevent further spread.

e. Improving ventilation “is an important COVID-19 prevention strategy

that can reduce the number of virus particles in the air.”

f. Teaching and reinforcing handwashing and respiratory etiquette to help

keep individuals from getting and spreading COVID-19.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 17 of 47

g. Staying home when sick and getting tested “is essential to keep

COVID-19 infections out of school and prevent the spread to others.”

Schools should allow flexible, non-punitive, supportive leave policies,

and excused absences for sick workers and students.

h. Contact tracing in combination with isolation and quarantine to report

and collaborate with state and local health departments.

i. Reducing the risk of spread by sufficiently cleaning and disinfecting

surfaces.

j. Given the highly contagious Delta variant, the CDC also recommends

“fully vaccinated people who have a known exposure to someone with

suspected or confirmed COVID-19 to be tested 3-5 days after exposure,

regardless of whether they have symptoms.”

k. Utilize adaptations and alterations to preventive strategies when serving

people with disabilities, while maintaining efforts to protect all children

and staff from COVID-19.

64. The CDC guidelines state that federal funds provided through the

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund should go

towards supporting preventive strategies, such as improvements to ventilation and

resources for screen testing programs.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 18 of 47

65. The AAP also released guidance that reiterates the CDC guidelines.

66. The AAP has stated that “[s]chools must continue to take a multi-

pronged, layered approach to protect students, teachers, and staff (i.e., vaccination,

universal mask use, ventilation, testing, quarantining, and cleaning and disinfecting).

Combining these layers of protection will make in-person learning safe and possible.

Schools should monitor the implementation and effectiveness of these policies.”

67. In an Open Letter to Georgia School Superintendents, the Georgia

Chapter of the AAP requested Georgia school districts to implement AAP and CDC

guidelines.

68. The GDPH has stated the importance of implementing CDC guidelines

to stop the spread of COVID-19 in early childcare and education programs.

69. The Cobb County Board of Health (“CBOH”) has adopted a position

statement endorsing CDC and AAP guidelines in all Cobb County schools.

70. Hundreds of doctors and medical professionals have requested the

District to implement CDC guidelines to reduce virus transmission.

Covid-19 Guidance for Safe Schools, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (last

updated July 18, 2021),

https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-

covid-19-infections/clinical-guidance/covid-19-planning-considerations-return-to-

in-person-education-in-schools/.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 19 of 47

71. On September 24, 2021, the CDC released its first analysis of the

impact of universal indoor masking requirements in schools for the 2021-2022

school year. The analysis found that “the odds of a school-associated COVID-19

outbreak in schools without a mask requirement were 3.5 times higher than those in

schools with an early mask requirement.”

Plaintiff children are unable to attend school in person because of the increased

risk caused by the District’s failure and refusal to implement CDC guidelines

72. Despite the abundance of available guidance from federal, state, and

local public health authorities and medical experts regarding preventing the spread

of COVID-19 in schools, Defendants have not implemented this guidance in the

District.

73. Since the 2021-2022 school year began in August 2021, as of

September 24, 2021, the District has reported 5,372 positive COVID-19 cases in

Cobb County schools.

74. The high number of COVID-19 cases in the District, alongside the lack

of COVID-19 safety and prevention measures in schools, creates an unreasonably

dangerous school environment for Plaintiffs.

75. Because of the risk to their health and safety, Plaintiffs can no longer

attend school.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 20 of 47

76. Plaintiff children have requested that Defendants implement effective

COVID-19 safety protocols – like they did last year – so that they can go to school.

But those requests have been denied or ignored.

77. Now, Plaintiffs are at home, isolated away from their peers, where they

receive an inadequate virtual education or no education at all.

Plaintiff L.E.

78. L.E. is a 13-year-old child who was diagnosed with acute myeloid

leukemia (“AML”) as an infant. His current diagnosis is hypogammaglobulinemia.

L.E.’s chemotherapy regimen has weakened his immune system causing him

frequent illness. L.E. regularly has fevers and constant pain in his limbs and back.

His weakened immune system increases the risk that he will get severely ill or die if

he contracts COVID-19.

79. L.E. is a seventh-grade student enrolled in the District.

80. The District has identified L.E. as a student with a disability in need of

special education services and accommodations.

81. L.E. is severely immunocompromised; even before the pandemic, the

school nurse would notify L.E.’s mother, Sara Cavorley, of the annual flu outbreaks

so that L.E. could take appropriate precautions.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 21 of 47

82. During the 2020-2021 school year, Ms. Cavorley registered L.E. for

virtual learning because he was ineligible for the COVID-19 vaccine.

83. L.E. was vaccinated prior to the 2021-2022 school year, and his doctors

approved him returning to school in-person so long as the 2020-2021 safety

protocols were in place, namely universal masking, plexiglass between students, and

social distancing. L.E.’s doctors advised against him attending school in-person if

the District discontinued those safety protocols.

84. Because the District discontinued its 2020-2021 safety protocols for the

2021-2022 school year, Ms. Cavorley removed L.E. from in-person school and

requested Hospital/Homebound (“HHB”) services for him.

85. On several occasions, before removing L.E. from in-person school, Ms.

Cavorley requested that the District implement CDC guidelines for the 2021-2022

school year so that L.E. could safely attend school in-person with his peers. The

District refused.

86. HHB services are designed to be temporary and provide continuity of

educational services between the classroom and home or hospital for students in

public schools whose medical needs, either physical or psychiatric, do not allow

them to attend school for a limited time. HHB is not an appropriate placement for a

child who could attend school in-person with reasonable modifications.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 22 of 47

87. L.E. now only receives five hours of instruction per week at home,

where he is isolated from his peers. The District offers no flexibility due to the

District’s short staffed HHB program.

88. On or around August 26, 2021, Ms. Cavorley emailed the assistant

principal at L.E.’s school, explaining that he is only using HHB services because the

District refuses to implement adequate safety measures like masking and social

distancing.

89. When the District sent L.E.’s siblings close contact notifications in two

consecutive weeks, Ms. Cavorley stopped her other four children from attending

school in-person to protect L.E.

90. The District then sent Ms. Cavorley a notice threatening to disenroll her

children which prompted her to send L.E.’s siblings back to school in-person. L.E.’s

siblings now attend school fearful of bringing COVID-19 home to L.E.

91. L.E. is being denied access to in-person education opportunities

because of his disability.

92. If Defendants implemented CDC guidelines and adequate COVID-19

safety protocols, L.E. could attend school in-person and access an in-person

education like his nondisabled peers.

93. Defendants’ actions have and continue to irreparably harm L.E.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 23 of 47

94. Defendants have caused L.E. educational and actual harm.

95. Due to Defendants’ actions, L.E. is entitled to declaratory relief,

preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and actual and nominal damages.

Plaintiff B.B.

96. B.B. is a 15-year-old child diagnosed with Duchenne Muscular

Dystrophy (“DMD”), which is a terminal disease that causes muscle weakness and

requires him to be in a wheelchair.

97. B.B. is an eighth-grade student enrolled in the District.

98. The District has identified B.B. as a student with a disability in need of

special education services and accommodations.

99. B.B.’s treatment for DMD includes steroids, which make him

immunocompromised. B.B.’s weakened immune system increases the risk that he

will get severely ill or die if he contracts COVID-19.

100. The onset of DMD symptoms usually begins between ages 2 and 3.

DMD first affects the proximal muscles, then the limb muscles, then later, the heart

and respiratory muscles. DMD can result in impaired pulmonary function, which

can then lead to acute respiratory failure.

101. B.B.’s physician determined that it was too dangerous to send B.B. to

school in-person because of the District’s lack of adequate safety measures.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 24 of 47

102. B.B.’s parent, Elizabeth Baird, through many communications,

requested that the District accommodate B.B.’s disability by following CDC

guidelines to allow him to attend school in-person. The District refused.

103. Ms. Baird then requested HHB services on or around September 8,

2021, as an accommodation.

104. On or around September 13, 2021, the District denied Ms. Baird’s

request for HHB services, claiming that HHB is “not appropriate for COVID

concerns.”

105. B.B. is currently not attending school and is not receiving any

educational services.

106. B.B. is being denied access to in-person education opportunities

because of his disability.

107. If Defendants implemented CDC Guidelines and adequate COVID-19

safety protocols, B.B. could attend school in-person and access an in-person

education like his nondisabled peers.

108. Defendants’ actions have and continue to irreparably harm B.B.

109. Defendants have caused B.B. educational and actual harm.

110. Due to Defendants’ violations, B.B. is entitled to declaratory relief,

preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and actual and nominal damages.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 25 of 47

Plaintiff A.Z.

111. A.Z. is a 7-year-old child diagnosed with Bronchiectasis, an airway

clearance impairment. She has persistent asthma, chronic bronchitis, and recurring

pneumonia. A.Z. has undergone numerous tests and invasive procedures, but the root

cause of her recurring symptoms is still unknown. A.Z. undergoes aggressive airway

clearance therapy and daily medications.

112. A.Z. is a first-grade student enrolled in the District

113. The District has identified her as a student with a disability in need of

accommodations.

114. A.Z. began the 2021-2022 school year in-person.

115. A few days into the school year, A.Z.’s mother, Jessica Zeigler, learned

that the District did not mandate masks on school buses, so Ms. Zeigler began

driving A.Z. to and from school.

116. On or around August 16, 2021, A.Z. awoke with a fever and caught

pneumonia—the second infection in less than a year.

117. On or around August 31, 2021, A.Z.’s doctor advised Ms. Zeigler that

A.Z. should not attend school in-person based on the District’s lack of safety

protocols.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 26 of 47

118. Ms. Zeigler requested accommodations to allow A.Z. to safely return

to school in-person. The District denied her requests.

119. A.Z. has not attended school in-person since August 13, 2021.

120. A.Z. is being denied access to in-person education opportunities

because of her disability.

121. If Defendants implemented CDC guidelines and adequate COVID-19

safety protocols, A.Z. could attend school in-person and access a public education

like her nondisabled peers.

122. Defendants’ actions have and continue to irreparably harm A.Z.

123. Defendants have caused A.Z. educational and actual harm.

124. Due to Defendants’ violations, A.Z. is entitled to declaratory relief,

preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and actual and nominal damages.

Plaintiff C.S.

125. C.S. is a 14-year-old child diagnosed with severe asthma. C.S. has a

history of pneumonia and upper respiratory infection.

126. C.S. is a ninth-grade student enrolled in the District.

127. The District has identified C.S. as a student with a disability in need of

accommodations.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 27 of 47

128. After learning that the District would not follow CDC guidelines in the

2021-2022 school year, C.S. started the school year in a “hybrid learning” model—

two classes of in-person learning at school and three classes of remote learning at

home, due to his disability.

129. At the beginning of the school year, when he attended school in-person,

few people in C.S.’s school wore masks and participated in physical distancing,

particularly during group projects, in crowded hallways, and in the lunchroom.

130. To protect C.S., his mother, Tarasha Shirley, requested a meeting to

seek implementation of CDC guidelines and other safety protocols in school.

Because of the length of time needed to conduct a meeting and the increasing threat

to C.S.’s safety, Ms. Shirley withdrew C.S. from attending school in-person and C.S.

now attends school virtually full time.

131. C.S. has not attended school in-person since August 13, 2021.

132. C.S. struggles with virtual learning because he must teach himself the

material and he lacks peer interactions.

133. C.S. is unable to participate in critical testing at school because there

are no CDC guidelines or other safety protocols at the school testing sites, which

will effect C.S.’s secondary educational opportunities.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 28 of 47

134. C.S. is being denied access to in-person education opportunities

because of his disability.

135. If Defendants implemented CDC guidelines and adequate COVID-19

safety protocols, C.S. could attend school in-person and access a public education

like his nondisabled peers.

136. Defendants’ actions have and continue to irreparably harm C.S.

137. Defendants have caused C.S. educational and actual harm.

138. Due to Defendants’ violations, C.S. is entitled to declaratory and

preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, as well as actual and nominal damages.

The District willfully and consistently fails to mitigate

COVID-19 transmission in its schools

139. Dating back to November 2020, immediately after the Board’s most

recent election, the Board’s four majority members changed the Board’s policy to

increase the number of votes needed to add a meeting agenda item for discussion to

four.

140. The Board, consisting of seven total members, is racially and politically

divided with four white Republican members and three Black Democrat members.

141. The Board’s November 2020 policy change has silenced the minority

board members and their constituents by denying them the opportunity to add an

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 29 of 47

agenda item for discussion, including COVID-19 safety protocols, without a

majority member vote.

142. Defendants Ragsdale, Scamihorn, Chastain, Banks, and Wheeler, the

District’s superintendent and four majority board members respectively, have

abdicated their duty to implement, or even consider and discuss, adequate COVID-

19 safety protocols that would allow Plaintiffs and other students with disabilities to

safely access an in-person education during the 2021-2022 school year.

143. During the 2020-2021 school year, the District reopened schools for in-

person learning after nearly seven months of remote learning.

144. Defendants implemented safety measures to prevent the spread of

COVID-19 in the District’s 2020-2021 Re-Opening Plan, which included mandatory

masking indoors and on buses, social distancing in classrooms and during lunch, and

daily cleaning and hygienic practices.

145. The 2020-2021 Re-Opening Plan did not interrupt, interfere with, or

unduly burden the District’s day-to-day functioning during the 2020-2021 school

year.

146. During the spring of 2021, students and families in the District were

offered the option to select between in-person or virtual learning for the 2021-2022

school year.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 30 of 47

147. Between March 22, 2021, and April 1, 2021, middle and high school

students could exercise the option for virtual school in the 2021-2022 school year.

148. Between April 19, 2021, and May 2, 2021, elementary students could

exercise the option for virtual school in the 2021-2022 school year.

149. To help inform students’ decision for the 2021-2022 school year, the

District published a “Frequently Asked Questions” document which indicated that

the District “will continue to follow the guidelines set forth by the CDC and Cobb

Douglas County Health Department” if a student attends school in-person during the

2021-2022 school year.

150. Based on the District’s statements coupled with downward trending

transmission rates at that time, approximately 97% of the District’s students selected

in-person school for the 2021-2022 school year, including Plaintiffs.

151. On April 29, 2021, in a filing with this Court, the District vigorously

defended its 2020-2021 Re-Opening Plan, including its mandatory indoor masking

policy, in response to a lawsuit challenging the District’s policies.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 31 of 47

152. In its April 29, 2021 filing, the District argued that the plaintiffs

bringing the lawsuit “favor their own interests over the public’s wellbeing, [and]

ignore recommendations from health experts at every level of government[.]”

153. The plaintiffs dismissed the lawsuit in May 2021 after this Court denied

their motion to enjoin the District’s mandatory indoor masking policy.

154. In subsequent months throughout the summer of 2021, as the Delta

variant continued to spread, COVID-19 safety and mitigation protocols were not

included on the Board’s respective meeting agendas because the majority members

refused to discuss them.

155. For example, during the Board’s May 20, 2021, work session,

Defendant Howard requested that a future board meeting agenda include a

presentation by the CDPH on effective COVID-19 mitigation strategies. This was

not the first time Defendant Howard had made this request. However, the majority

members, as of the date of this filing, have refused to include the presentation on any

subsequent meeting agenda.

Def.’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. For TRO, at 2, W.S. ex rel. Sonderman v.

Ragsdale, No. 1:21-cv-01560-TWT (N.D. Ga. Apr. 29, 2021) (ECF No. 5).

See W.S. v. Ragsdale, No. 1:21-cv-01560-TWT, 2021 WL 2024687 (N.D. Ga. May

12, 2021) (denying request to temporarily restrain the District from enforcing face

masks).

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 32 of 47

156. On May 25, 2021, the District applied for federal funds under the

American Rescue Plan (“ARP”) to be used in response to the impact of the COVID-

19 pandemic on students.

157. Congress requires that ARP funds be used to reopen schools safely

given the risks presented by COVID-19, and to provide students and teachers with

resources for alleviating the pandemic’s negative impact on education, including

support for students with disabilities.

158. Congress also directed states and local districts accepting ARP funding

to adopt ARP plans aligned with CDC guidelines to ensure a safe return to in-person

instruction and continuity of educational services.

159. The District’s ARP application referenced its 2020-2021 Re-Opening

Plan as a roadmap for how it would spend the funds it received.

160. On or around June 1, 2021, Defendant Ragsdale officially announced

that “masks will be optional for all Cobb County School District students and staff”

effective on June 7, 2021.

161. Defendant Ragsdale then introduced the 2021-2022 Public Health

Protocols (“21-22 Protocols”), as written, which includes the following:

a. No mandatory or strongly encouraged vaccinations for students and

staff members.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 33 of 47

b. Optional masks for students and staff, although strongly encouraged, in

school buildings, on school buses, and at extracurricular activities.

c. Students who are exposed to COVID-19 but asymptomatic may return

to class after three days if they wear a mask for an additional seven days

after exposure.

d. Any student or staff member who tests positive for COVID-19 must

isolate in accordance with GDPH guidelines.

e. Social distancing and limits on large group gatherings will occur “when

appropriate and feasible.”

f. Hand sanitizer, encouragement of frequent handwashing, daily

cleaning of high touch surfaces, and disinfecting of school buses will

be provided.

g. The school will contact a student’s parent/guardian if the student is

identified as a close contact, and the Cobb COVID-19 website will be

updated each Friday with positive/active COVID-19 cases.

h. If a student exhibits COVID-19 symptoms while in the school clinic,

the nurse has the discretion to request that the student wear a mask or

isolate in a designated area after being assessed or waiting for parent

pick-up.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 34 of 47

i. Non-staff volunteers are limited in their ability to enter school and

volunteer in roles that involve proximity to students during school

hours. Volunteers are still welcome on campus for after-school

activities and special school events. No parents/guardians may eat

lunch with their child in the school cafeteria.

162. The 21-22 Protocols do not accommodate students with disabilities so

that they can attend school in-person safely.

163. The 21-22 Protocols directly conflict and do not require student

compliance with or bus driver enforcement of the CDC’s January 29, 2021, Order

(“CDC Order”) that mandates facial coverings on school buses, including in

Georgia.

164. On June 7, 2021, less than two weeks after submitting its ARP

application, the District ended many of its safety protocols from the 2020-2021 Re-

Opening Plan, including its mandatory indoor masking policy.

165. The District did not allow students to subsequently modify their

decisions to attend school in-person and opt for virtual learning after the District

rescinded its statement that the District would follow CDC guidelines for the 2021-

2022 school year.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 35 of 47

166. In July 2021, the District was granted more than $160 million in federal

ARP funding to ensure that its students could safely access an in-person education.

167. By way of information and belief at the time of filing, the District has

not amended its ARP application as required to show that it did not follow its 2020-

2021 Re-Opening Plan as originally stated.

168. On August 19, 2021, the same day that Cobb County declared a local

emergency due to COVID-19 high transmission rates, Defendant Ragsdale refused

to meaningfully discuss COVID-19 mitigation strategies at the Board’s monthly

meeting, ignoring hundreds of calls from health and medical experts, parents,

students, and community leaders asking the District to modify its policies and protect

students.

169. The Board’s majority members also refused to add COVID-19

mitigation strategies to the August 19, 2021 meeting agenda or discuss the topic.

170. Because COVID-19 safety protocols were not on the August 19, 2021,

meeting agenda, Defendant Hutchins requested that the issue be added as an

emergency exception to the Board’s policy.

171. Although the Board’s policy allows for emergency items to be added

late to the agenda, Defendant Scamihorn, the Board’s chairperson, declared that

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 36 of 47

COVID-19 is “not an emergency,” and prohibited a discussion of COVID-19 safety

protocols at the August 19, 2021 meeting.

172. When directly asked at the August 19, 2021 meeting, Defendant

Scamihorn did not answer what constitutes an emergency.

173. Defendant Ragsdale is one of eight members on the Cobb County Board

of Health (“CBOH”).

174. Due to the District’s rise of COVID-19 cases, the CBOH called an

emergency meeting on September 7, 2021, to vote on a position statement endorsing

CDC guidelines to prevent and mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in all Cobb County

schools (public, private, and charter).

175. Defendant Ragsdale abstained from the vote

on the position statement

at the September 7, 2021 CBOH meeting.

176. Defendant Ragsdale was the only CBOH member not to support the

position statement at the September 7, 2021 CBOH meeting.

177. Dr. Janet Memark, District Director for the CDPH, in a September

public statement, offered to present recommendations to the Board about COVID-

19 safety protocols in the District, but the offer has not been accepted as of the date

of this filing.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 37 of 47

178. On September 23, 2021, the Board conducted its monthly meeting, and

COVID-19 safety protocols were not on the meeting agenda once again.

179. At the Board’s September 23, 2021, work session, prior to the Board’s

evening meeting, Defendants Scamihorn and Ragsdale did not disclose, even when

asked, that Defendant Ragsdale would later present on COVID-19 during his public

comments at the evening meeting.

180. Because COVID-19 safety protocols were not on the September 23,

2021, meeting agenda, Defendants Davis, Howard, and Hutchins, the minority

Board members, objected to the approval of the meeting agenda at the afternoon

work session, but the agenda was approved by the majority members.

181. Then, at the Board’s evening meeting on September 23, 2021,

Defendant Ragsdale gave an unannounced presentation on COVID-19.

182. Relying on dubious research and cherry-picked data, Defendant

Ragsdale attempted to promote the District’s COVID-19 response as successful and

to undermine the proven positive impact of complying with CDC guidelines.

183. Because the presentation was not on the Board’s meeting agenda,

Defendant Howard sought to discuss the data and findings with Defendant Ragsdale

during the meeting, but Defendant Scamihorn denied Defendant Howard’s request.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 38 of 47

184. Despite significantly higher transmission rates during August and

September of 2021 compared to 2020, the District has not complied with current

CDC guidelines as of the date of this filing.

185. Defendants know that children with disabilities are being denied access

to school programs and services on account of their disabilities, and Defendants have

the authority to adopt and implement COVID-19 safety protocols that would allow

Plaintiffs to attend school.

186. Defendant’s refusal to act despite this knowledge and authority is

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs’ right to attend school in-person with their

nondisabled peers and causes ongoing harm to Plaintiffs.

Defendants’ conduct is causing ongoing harm to Plaintiffs

187. Defendants’ removal of safety measures and subsequent refusal to

implement CDC guidelines to reduce and prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the

District has denied Plaintiffs the opportunity to attend school safely.

188. Now, Plaintiffs languish at home, isolated from their peers, where they

receive an inadequate, unequal education or no education at all. Because the

District’s conduct precludes Plaintiffs from the benefits of a free public education,

Plaintiffs must attempt to find alternative education resources on their own.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 39 of 47

189. Because of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs are being denied critical

educational opportunities, including the social, emotional, and academic advantages

of being in the classroom with their peers.

CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

Against All Defendants

190. Plaintiff L.E. repeats and realleges paragraphs 31-95 and 139-189 in

the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

191. Plaintiff B.B. repeats and realleges paragraphs 31-77, 96-110, and 139-

189 in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

192. Plaintiff A.Z. repeats and realleges paragraphs 31-77, 111-124, and

139-189 in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

193. Plaintiff C.S. repeats and realleges paragraphs 31-77 and 125-189 in

the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

194. Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination in the provision and

administration of public services and requires that persons with disabilities be

afforded meaningful access to the programs and activities of public entities. 42

U.S.C. § 12132, et seq.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 40 of 47

195. Specifically, the ADA provides that “no qualified individual shall, by

reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of

services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination

by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

196. The ADA’s implementing regulations prohibit public entities from,

either directly or through contractual arrangements, utilizing any criteria or methods

of administration that have the effect of subjecting qualified individuals with

disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability or have the purpose or effect

of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the

public entity’s program with respect to people with disabilities. 34 § C.F.R.

35.130(b)(3)(i).

197. The ADA imposes an affirmative obligation upon public entities to

“make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such

modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges,

advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities. . . .” See 42 U.S.C.

§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii); 28 C.F.R. §

35.130(b)(7).

198. The ADA’s implementing regulations affirmatively obligate public

entities to administer their services, programs, and activities in the most integrated

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 41 of 47

setting appropriate to the needs of qualified students with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. §

35.130(d).

199. The District is a public entity as defined by the ADA.

200. Plaintiffs are people with disabilities and are qualified individuals with

disabilities as defined by the ADA.

201. Plaintiffs are eligible to receive a public education in the District.

202. Defendants are excluding Plaintiffs from participating in or denying

them the benefits of public education, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), 42 U.S.C.

§ 12132 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.130.

203. Defendants are administering policies and practices that have the effect

of excluding Plaintiffs from participation in public education, denying them the

benefits of public education, or otherwise subjecting them to discrimination on the

basis of their disability, in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3)(i).

204. Defendants are failing to modify their policies, procedures, and

operational practices under circumstances where such modification is necessary and

required, in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7).

205. Defendants are failing to administer their services, programs, and

activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of Plaintiffs, in

violation of 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d).

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 42 of 47

206. Defendants are administering policies and practices that have the

purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the

objectives of Defendants’ program with respect to Plaintiffs, in violation of 28

C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3)(ii).

207. Defendants’ conduct constitutes discrimination against Plaintiffs by

reason of their disabilities.

208. Defendants’ conduct is continuous and ongoing, in violation of the

ADA.

209. Defendants’ conduct has caused Plaintiffs harm, and this harm will

continue.

210. Defendants’ conduct, unless enjoined, will continue to inflict injuries

for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

Against All Defendants

211. Plaintiff L.E. repeats and realleges paragraphs 31-95 and 139-189 in

the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

212. Plaintiff B.B. repeats and realleges paragraphs 31-77, 96-110, and 139-

189 in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

213. Plaintiff A.Z. repeats and realleges paragraphs 31-77, 111-124, and

139-189 in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 43 of 47

214. Plaintiff C.S. repeats and realleges paragraphs 31-77 and 125-189 in

the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

215. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination by

recipients of federal financial assistance.

216. Defendants are recipients of federal financial assistance.

217. Plaintiffs are children with disabilities as defined by Section 504.

218. Plaintiffs meet the essential eligibility requirements to participate in

public education through the District and receive Defendants’ services, and are

therefore qualified individuals with disabilities as defined by Section 504.

219. Defendants are excluding Plaintiffs from participation in public

education, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) and 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(1)(i).

220. Defendants are administering policies and practices that have the effect

of excluding Plaintiffs from participation in public education, denying them the

benefits of public education, and subjecting them to discrimination on the basis of

their disability. 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(4).

221. Defendants are administering policies and practices that have the

purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the

objectives of Defendants program with respect to Plaintiffs, in violation of 34 C.F.R.

§ 104.4(b)(4).

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 44 of 47

222. Defendants’ conduct constitutes discrimination against Plaintiffs

because of their disabilities.

223. Defendants’ conduct constitutes continuous and ongoing violations of

Section 504.

224. Defendants’ conduct has caused educational and actual harm to

Plaintiffs, and this harm will continue.

225. Defendants’ conduct, unless enjoined, will continue to inflict injuries

for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:

A. Accept jurisdiction of this lawsuit;

B. Declare that Defendants’ actions violate the ADA and Section 504 by

denying Plaintiffs from meaningful access to educational benefits, and otherwise

discriminating against Plaintiffs, based on their disabilities.

C. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants

from violating the ADA and Section 504;

Order Defendants to develop and implement policies, practices,

procedures, and protocols for a multilayered COVID-19 mitigation strategy that

follows existing CDC guidelines for COVID-19 Prevention in K-12 Schools to

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 45 of 47

accommodate Plaintiffs’ disabilities and maintain consistency with CDC guidelines

in the event of subsequent changes;

E. Award Plaintiffs nominal and actual damages;

F. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses

incurred;

G. Grant Plaintiffs a jury trial; and

H. Order and direct any and all other relief as this Court deems proper.

Respectfully submitted this 1

day of October, 2021.

SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER

/s/ Michael J. Tafelski

Michael J. Tafelski

Ga. Bar No. 507007

Eugene Choi

Ga. Bar No. 121626

Claire Sherburne

Ga. Bar No. 732244

Brock Boone (pro hac vice forthcoming)

Ala. Bar No. 2864-L11E

P.O. Box 1287

Decatur, GA 30031-1287

(334) 956-8273

michael.tafelski@splcenter.org

eugene.choi@splcenter.org

claire.sherburne@splcenter.org

brock.boone@splcenter.org

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 46 of 47

LAW OFFICE OF ALLISON B. VROLIJK

/s/ Allison B. Vrolijk

Allison B. Vrolijk

Ga. Bar No. 299360

885 Woodstock Road, Suite 430-318

Roswell, GA 30075

(770) 587-9228

allison@vrolijklaw.com

GOODMARK LAW FIRM

/s/ Craig Goodmark

Craig Goodmark

Ga. Bar No. 301428

1425 Dutch Valley Place, Suite A

Atlanta, GA 30324

(404) 719-4848

cgoodmark@gmail.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Case 1:21-cv-04076-TCB Document 1 Filed 10/01/21 Page 47 of 47