Anti-mask parents sue again, claim Millcreek, NE school directors violated Sunshine Act

The anti-mask lawsuits that parents filed against two Erie County school districts have expanded beyond claims related to the Pennsylvania School Code.

The parents, who lost underlying their case in Erie County Common Pleas Court, have filed new lawsuits claiming violations of the state Sunshine Act.

The parents are arguing that the school boards for the Millcreek Township and North East school districts violated the open-meetings law by failing to hold public votes on an appeal related to the anti-mask case.

The school districts won the major part of the combined case over the pandemic-era masking requirements for students. In a ruling on Sept. 13, Judge Erin Connelly Marucci rejected the parents' request that she remove school directors who approved the mask rules. The parents claimed the state School Code authorized the judge to remove the board members for refusing or neglecting to perform a duty.

But Connelly Marucci rejected the school districts' request that she order the parents, as the losers in the case, to pay the legal fees of the districts, as the winners in the case.

The parents appealed Connelly Marucci's decision over the mask rules to state Commonwealth Court on Oct. 3. A week later, the school districts jointly appealed Connelly Marucci's rejection of the districts' request for legal fees.

In response, the parents filed the new lawsuits on Thursday in Common Pleas Court. They want an Erie County judge to:

• Declare that the Millcreek and North East school boards violated the Sunshine Act in the way they handled the appeals of Connelly Marucci's fee ruling.

• Invalidate the districts' joint appeal over the legal fees because the boards authorized it "outside of a public meeting," according to the lawsuits.

• Prohibit the school districts from taking any more action related to the original anti-mask lawsuits.

• Award legal fees to the parents in the Sunshine Act case.

The solicitor for both school districts, Timothy Sennett, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The school districts will get a chance to answer the new lawsuits in court.

Sunshine Act at center of new mask-related cases

The Sunshine Act allows for school boards to meet in executive sessions on legal matters, though the law still requires the boards to vote in public. One issue in the parents' new lawsuits could be whether school boards must publicly vote on whether to appeal lawsuits.

No matter what happens, the North East and Millcreek school districts must continue to spend on legal fees for the parents' appeal of Connelly Marucci's ruling and on the parents' new lawsuits. In defeating the parents in court over the masks, the districts spent a total of $20,392 in attorneys' fees and legal costs — $15,328.50 for the Millcreek School District and $5,063.50 for the North East School District, according to district records.

A number of parents sued the Millcreek Township School District over the masks on April 25, and a group of North East parents filed a virtually identical petition on May 19. Connelly Marucci consolidated the cases, and her ruling covered both lawsuits.

The parents who filed the lawsuits did so under the auspices of a group called Erie County PA Parents Protecting Children. The lead petitioner in the Millcreek case is Troy Prozan. The lead petitioner in the North East case is Erin Beckes. A lawyer from Lebanon County, J. Chadwick Schnee, represents the parents, including in the new lawsuits.

School districts wants judge to see suits as 'frivolous'

The parents want the school directors ousted because they approved mask mandates and quarantine requirements to curb the spread of COVID-19.

Both school boards set aside the restrictions earlier this year as the number of coronavirus cases waned and the state directives for school districts changed. But the parents sued anyway, claiming the masks and quarantine rules violated the rights of their children, including the 8th Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Connelly Marucci ruled against the parents in a sharply worded opinion. She cited a longstanding Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent that said school directors have wide discretion in dealing with health concerns in their buildings. She refused to oust the school directors, who are elected, and pick their replacements.

Precedent:In 1894, PA Supreme Court ruled in favor of smallpox shots for students. What does it mean today?

Connelly Marucci rejected the districts' request for legal fees without explanation.

The lawyers for the school districts — Sennett, Michael Musone and Philip J. Seaver-Hall — asked for the imposition of the costs to deter other groups from filing similar lawsuits against school districts.

In their appeal over the fees issue, the districts are arguing that Connelly Marucci erred by declining to impose the legal fees on the parents, according to a document the districts filed with their joint appeal.

Connelly Marucci, the districts said in the document, also erred by declining to evaluate whether the parents' anti-mask lawsuits were "frivolous, as a matter of law."

Contact Ed Palattella at epalattella@timesnews.com. Follow him on Twitter @ETNpalattella.

This article originally appeared on Erie Times-News: Anti-mask parents sue again, claim school boards broke Sunshine Act