The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court has sided with a local mother in a case against the Dallas Independent School District (DISD), allowing her to represent her children in a lawsuit.
Ally Raskin sued DISD in response to the mandates requiring students to wear masks.
In an interview with The Dallas Express, Raskin explained that “when they started these mask mandates … I really took issue when I knew how many detrimental effects there would be after wearing a mask for eight plus hours a day for a child, socially, physically, et cetera.”
“I just felt very strongly that I should be making decisions on my children’s health, not a school district that knows nothing about my child, and frankly, nothing about health,” she continued. “Schools are trained in education, not health.”
“Then literally the day before school started in the Fall of 2021, the superintendent mandated that the children were going to have to wear a mask all day. So it put us in a horrible position because our choice was either to keep our kids out of school and school from home or find a different school at the last possible moment,” Raskin said.
After roughly half the year, Raskin said her children were suffering due to the requirements.
“We started to have some serious issues. My son was having major anxiety, and my daughter was suffering from depression from all of the mandates,” she said.
Raskin eventually pulled her children out of DISD and placed them in a private school that did not require masking.
“So I was very frustrated with the situation, and I’m not the kind of person that sits back and complains, I like to do something,” she added.
After a series of events, Raskin sued the district on behalf of her children. She struggled to find an attorney willing to represent her, so Raskin sought to represent her child pro se.
DISD moved to dismiss the case on procedural grounds, arguing that Raskin could not represent her children pro se and lacked standing. A lower court sided with the district, but Raskin appealed the case to the Fifth Circuit.
She argued the case against DISD in November 2022, which can be listened to here.
Writing the opinion for the court, Judge Stephen Higginson rejected DISD’s claims, saying, “We hold that an absolute bar on pro se parent representation is inconsistent with [federal law], which allows a pro se parent to proceed on behalf of her child in federal court when the child’s case is the parent’s ‘own.’”
The judge criticized “Dallas ISD’s extraordinary efforts to prevent this case from being heard” noting “its intrepid lawyers’ at-all-cost litigation strategy proves it.”
On the other hand, the court applauded Raskin’s ability as an advocate, noting, “She filed two excellent briefs in our court. … And on November 9, 2022, Ms. Raskin presented oral argument in front of our panel. Ms. Raskin was a passionate and effective advocate.”
The case will now return to the lower court to be heard on the actual merits of the case.
However, the court did indicate that the lower court might still rule against her claims, noting that “Raskin brings claims on her children’s behalf under [the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act].”
Continuing, the judge explained, “But that statute ‘prohibits an employer from discriminating or taking adverse actions against an employee because of genetic information with respect to the employee’ or ‘request[ing], requir[ing], or purchas[ing] genetic information with respect to an employee or a family member of the employee.’”
“It is not apparent from the face of the operative complaint how this statute has any relevance to DISD’s alleged conduct or Raskin’s children,” he concluded.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks