Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Brian and Janelle Shellem v. Angela Gruneweld, et al.

Date: 03-28-2023

Case Number: 2023 OK 26

Judge: Rove

Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma on appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County

Plaintiff's Attorney:







Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan



Click Here For The Best Oklahoma City Civil Litigatikon Lawyer Directory



If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer.







Defendant's Attorney: F. Andrew Fugitt and Justin C. Cliburn

Description:
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma education law lawyer represented Plaintiffs who challenged school quarantine policy.





¶1 During the summer of 2021, Appellants, Edmond Public School Board Members and Edmond Public School District Superintendent, Angela Grunewald, (collectively "District") anticipated a complete return to in-person instruction for the 2021-2022 school year. Prior to the start of the school year, the Oklahoma City County Health Department ("OCCHD") expressed to District that quarantines should be recommended rather than required. In response, District prepared a standard letter that alerted parents when their child was exposed to a positive COVID-19 case, which left the responsibility "for carrying out a quarantine or not" up to the parents. [1] School began on Thursday, August 12, 2021. By the fourth day of school, District reported 140 positive cases of COVID-19 which rose to 170 positive cases on the fifth day of the school year.



¶2 Based on guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC"), OCCHD informed District that individuals deemed a "close contact" [2] should quarantine in light of the drastic spike of positive COVID-19 cases within the first week of the school year. OCCHD strongly recommended close contacts quarantine for 7-10 days unless (A) the close contact was vaccinated against COVID-19 or (B) the close contact had tested positive in the previous 90 days (the "Policy"). The following day, District implemented a policy consistent with OCCHD's recommendation and informed parents of the Policy by email. [3]



¶3 The Policy provided that a vaccinated close contact was not required to quarantine unless he or she displayed symptoms, but an unvaccinated close contact that had not tested positive within ninety days was required to quarantine. In the case of being identified as a close contact, the unvaccinated individual was presented with two options for quarantine: (1) a 7-day quarantine, in which the individual may return to school on day 8 if he or she provides a negative COVID-19 test on or after day 5 and continues to remain symptom free; or (2) a 10-day quarantine, in which the individual may return to school on or after day 11 if he or she remains symptom free.



¶4 As a result of the Policy, several unvaccinated students were required to quarantine due to being identified as a close contact. The Appellees, parents of children enrolled in Edmond Public Schools affected by the Policy ("Parents"), individually and on behalf of their children, filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief and an Application for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") in the District Court of Oklahoma County. Parents alleged the Policy violated: (1) 70 O.S. § 1210.189 (A)(1); (2) their children's Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process; and (3) their children's First Amendment right to freely assemble. District objected, and the TRO was denied.



¶5 Following denial of the TRO, the trial court heard testimony on Parents' Petition for Injunctive Relief. A week later, the Attorney General filed a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of granting Parents' Injunction on the basis that the Policy violates 70 O.S.Supp.2021, § 1210.189 (A)(1). District objected to the filing of the brief, but the trial court granted the Attorney General's motion. The trial court denied relief on all three counts pleaded in the Petition, but granted a Temporary Injunction based on Parents' Equal Protection Clause argument and enjoined District from implementing or enforcing the Policy.



¶6 District timely appealed raising five counts of error relating to the trial court's Equal Protection analysis and inconsistencies of the trial court's order concerning evidence of irreparable harm. In addition, the Attorney General filed an amicus curiae brief with consent of the parties suggesting to the Court that while the trial court properly enjoined District from enforcing the Policy, the trial court improperly interpreted 70 O.S.Supp.2021, § 1210.189 (A)(1). Neither Parents nor District filed a response to the Attorney General's amicus brief. We retained the matter for review.

Shellem v. Gruneweld, 2023 OK 26 (Okla. 2023)
Outcome:
District order vacated and declaratory judgment granted.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:

About This Case

What was the outcome of Brian and Janelle Shellem v. Angela Gruneweld, et al.?

The outcome was: District order vacated and declaratory judgment granted.

Which court heard Brian and Janelle Shellem v. Angela Gruneweld, et al.?

This case was heard in Supreme Court of Oklahoma on appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, OK. The presiding judge was Rove.

Who were the attorneys in Brian and Janelle Shellem v. Angela Gruneweld, et al.?

Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan Click Here For The Best Oklahoma City Civil Litigatikon Lawyer Directory If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer.. Defendant's attorney: F. Andrew Fugitt and Justin C. Cliburn.

When was Brian and Janelle Shellem v. Angela Gruneweld, et al. decided?

This case was decided on March 28, 2023.