Waldrop v. Board of Education Order

DOCUMENT 30
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/16/2021 9:49 PM
01-CV-2021-902513.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
JACQUELINE ANDERSON SMITH, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA

BIRMINGHAM DIVISION
WALDROP ADAM, )
Plaintiff, )
)
V. ) Case No.: CV-2021-902513.00
)
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF
)
EDUCATION,
Defendant. )
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff, Adam Waldrop’s, Application for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed against the Jefferson County Board of
Education pursuant to Rule 65 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. A hearing was held in
this matter on September 13, 2021. Attorney William McGowen III appeared before the Court
on behalf of Plaintiff, Adam Waldrop.
Upon due consideration of the evidence presented to this Court, including oral
arguments, pleadings, and affidavits, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Application for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Likewise, Plaintiff’s Petition for
Declaratory Judgment is also hereby DENIED.
The Alabama Department of Public Health (“ADPH”) issued a Back to School Guidance
for the 2021-2022 academic year. (“ADPH Guidance”). This guidance contained the most up to
date recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) related to
COVID-19. Universal masking was set forth which was based on the best scientific
understanding of how COVID-19 infects and spreads among students and educators. The
Jefferson County Department of Health agreed to the guidance and recommendation of the
Alabama Department of Public Health. Subsequently, the Jefferson County Board of Education
adopted a resolution approving the masking protocol.
“The ADPH K-12 Back to School Guidance 2021-2022 contains recommendations based
on the current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Back to School guidelines to
ensure that school administrators and school nurses have the best health guidance to mitigate
the spread of COVID-19 and keep students and staff safely in school. The best CDC strategies
for students to remain in the classroom, even if exposed to a positive COVID-19 case, are the use
of masks, spacing, and vaccinations. For those students too young for vaccinations, consistent
DOCUMENT 30
and correct mask use and three feet (six feet is better) of social distance in classrooms will help
students to remain in the classroom, and mitigate the further spread of the COVID-19 virus and
prevent outbreaks. Implementing universal masking, spacing, and vaccinations
recommendations will allow more students to remain in school, more parents and grandparents
to remain at work, and most importantly prevent an outbreak in the school that could spread to
the community at large.” (ADPH Back to School Guidance 2021-2022 cov-school-guidance-
073021.pdf (alabamapublichealth.gov))
Plaintiff has sought: (1) an immediate Temporary Restraining Order terminating any
and all policies related to any asserted requirement that students wear masks; (2) a Preliminary
Injunction denying the right of any Board of Education to implement a policy including any
asserted requirement that students wear masks; and (3) Petition for Declaratory Judgment.
The elements for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary
Injunction are the same. Lott v. Eastern Shore Christian Center, 908 So. 2d 922, 927 (Ala.
2005). “[T]he grant of a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy,” Petroleum Equip.
Tool Co. v. State Bd. of Health, 567 So. 2d 328, 330 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990), and should be issued
“only when the party seeking the injunction demonstrates the following four elements: (1) that
without the injunction the plaintiff will suffer immediate and irreparable injury; (2) that the
plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law; (3) that the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of
the case; and (4) that the hardship imposed upon the defendant by the injunction would not
unreasonably outweigh the benefit to the plaintiff.” White v. John, 164 So. 3d 1106, 1116–17
(Ala. 2014) (quoting Barber v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach, Inc., 42 So. 3d 65, 78 (Ala. 2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
In the instant matter, Plaintiff is not entitled to either a Temporary Restraining Order or
a Preliminary Injunction because he has failed to demonstrate compliance with Rule 65 of the
Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing the four
elements required.
First, Plaintiff has not offered any evidence to show that he will suffer immediate and
irreparable injury. Plaintiff has only alleged irreparable harm, concluded that he has suffered it,
but has failed to offer any facts in support of his allegation. He asserts that he is being “forced”
to “commit a crime” by making his son comply with the Jefferson County Board of Education’s
facial covering requirement. His “assertion” is nothing more than a legal conclusion that such a
requirement is tantamount to criminal child abuse and is unsupported by any facts.
Second, Plaintiff has not presented facts or even argued that he has no adequate remedy
at law. Likewise, Plaintiff has merely alleged and then concluded based on his own allegation
DOCUMENT 30
that he has no adequate remedy at law.

Third, Plaintiff avers that the Jefferson County Board of Education is making medical
decisions or implementing “medical countermeasures” through the implementation of the facial
covering requirement and asserts that the Board lacks authority for these measures. However,
the Board is vested with the “general administration and supervision of schools” and with the
power to “exercise control and supervision over the public school system of the county … and to
seek in every way to promote the interests of the schools under its jurisdiction.” Ala. Code §§ 16-
8-8; 16-8-9 (1975). The Court finds that the Jefferson County Board of Education has exercised
its statutory authority to implement a facial covering requirement and it has lawfully and
appropriately done so based on the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the Alabama Department of Public Health, and the Jefferson County Department of
Health. Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff has not established a reasonable likelihood of
success on the merits.
Fourth, Plaintiff has not proven that injunctive relief in his favor would outweigh the
burden on the Jefferson County Board of Education or that it would serve the public interest.
To the contrary, enjoining the requirement of facial coverings could result in an increase of the
spread of COVID-19 in Jefferson County, mandatory quarantines related to COVID-19 exposure,
possible deaths, and school closures. This would be a greater burden on the Jefferson County
Board of Education and the public that outweighs the benefit of Plaintiff’s preference to have his
son attend in-person school without a facial covering.
Finally, Plaintiff characterizes Count Two of his Complaint as a Petition for Declaratory
Judgment, he does not seek construction of a statute although he cites to several statutory
definitions and regulations without any application to facts or legal analysis whatsoever.
Accordingly, all claims are DISMISSED with Prejudice in their entirety. All costs of
Court are taxed to the Plaintiff.
DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of September, 2021.
/s/ BRENDETTE BROWN GREEN

CIRCUIT JUDGE

Waldrop v. Board of Education Order

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Waldrop v. Board of Education Order

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Waldrop v. Board of Education Order

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOCUMENT 30

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA

that he has no adequate remedy at law.

DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of September, 2021.

/s/ BRENDETTE BROWN GREEN

You might also like