R.K. v. Lee, 563 F.Supp.3d 774

Background

Plaintiffs R.K. (age 13, Down syndrome) and W.S. (age 7, type‑1 diabetes) are disabled public‑school students in Williamson County and Franklin, Tennessee, who say they are at heightened risk of severe COVID‑19.
Gov. Bill Lee issued Executive Order No. 84 (Aug. 16, 2021), allowing parents to opt their K–12 children out of local school mask mandates for any reason; counties amended their universal mask mandates to permit parental opt‑outs.
Williamson County and Franklin had implemented temporary universal mask mandates to limit Delta‑variant spread; large numbers of students (Williamson ≈32%; Franklin ≈10%) opted out after EO 84.
Plaintiffs sued under Title II of the ADA and Section 504, seeking a temporary injunction: enjoin enforcement of EO 84 in those school systems and require districts to enforce universal masking without parental opt‑outs as a reasonable accommodation.
Williamson County took no position and Franklin supported universal masking; the court found Plaintiffs demonstrated likelihood of success and irreparable harm and granted a temporary injunction barring enforcement of EO 84 in Williamson County and ordering the districts to enforce mask policies without EO 84 opt‑outs (effective through Oct. 5, 2021).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether EO 84 and the resulting opt‑out policy violate Title II ADA / Section 504 by denying reasonable accommodations (universal masking)	EO 84 prevents schools from providing effective, reasonable modification (universal masks) that would make in‑person education accessible to medically vulnerable students	Gov. Lee: universal mandate is not a proper or individualized ADA accommodation, is overbroad, costly, and does not show discrimination	Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed; universal masking is a reasonable modification and EO 84 stands as an obstacle to ADA/Section 504 protections in this record
Whether Plaintiffs face irreparable harm absent an injunction	Continued exposure to COVID‑19 (serious illness or death risk) constitutes irreparable harm because it denies safe access to schooling	Governor offered no persuasive rebuttal on irreparable harm	Court: irreparable harm established (supports injunction)
Whether laches bars relief (delay in filing)	Plaintiffs acted promptly given the pandemic’s changing conditions	Gov. Lee: Plaintiffs waited more than a month and unreasonably delayed	Court: no unreasonable delay shown and Gov. Lee failed to show prejudice; laches rejected
Whether IDEA administrative exhaustion is required	Plaintiffs seek relief for denial of access caused by EO 84, not relief for denial of a FAPE, so exhaustion is not required	Gov. Lee: Plaintiffs must exhaust IDEA remedies (IEP administrative process)	Court: IDEA exhaustion inapplicable because remedy sought is not for denial of FAPE; exhaustion rejected

Key Cases Cited

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Tr. Co., 78 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 1996) (purpose of Rule 65 injunction is to preserve the status quo)
First Tech. Safety Sys., Inc. v. Depinet, 11 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 1993) (injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy)
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (when government opposes, harm to parties and public interest merge)
Wilson v. Gregory, 3 F.4th 844 (6th Cir. 2021) (Title II ADA standard cited)
Ability Ctr. of Greater Toledo v. City of Sandusky, 385 F.3d 901 (6th Cir. 2004) (ADA/Section 504 standards and analysis)
Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017) (limits on IDEA exhaustion when relief is not for denial of FAPE)
Danville Christian Academy, Inc. v. Beshear, 503 F. Supp. 3d 516 (E.D. Ky. 2020) (enjoining state executive order that conflicted with federal law)
League of Independent Fitness Facilities & Trainers, Inc. v. Whitmer, 468 F. Supp. 3d 940 (W.D. Mich. 2020) (similar injunctions addressing state orders during pandemic)
Hostettler v. College of Wooster, 895 F.3d 844 (6th Cir. 2018) (public‑interest considerations in ADA preliminary relief)