Doe v. Oceanside Union Free Sch. Dist.

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
• Writing for the Court: Joanna Seybert, United States District Judge
• Docket Number: 25-CV-06214(JS)(SIL)
• Decision Date: 22 December 2025
• Citation: Doe v. Oceanside Union Free Sch. Dist., 25-CV-06214(JS)(SIL) (E.D. N.Y. Dec 22, 2025)
• Parties: JOHN DOE, ON BEHALF OF HIS MINOR CHILD, JANE ROE[1], Plaintiff, v. OCEANSIDE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, DR. PHYLLIS S. HARRINGTON, JULIE MCGAHAN, DR. J. DEROSA, and ANTWAN HASKOOR, M.D., Defendants.

1

JOHN DOE, ON BEHALF OF HIS MINOR CHILD, JANE ROE^[1], Plaintiff, v. OCEANSIDE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, DR. PHYLLIS S. HARRINGTON, JULIE MCGAHAN, DR. J. DEROSA, and ANTWAN HASKOOR, M.D., Defendants.

No. 25-CV-06214(JS)(SIL)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

December 22, 2025

For Plaintiff: Chad A. Davenport, Esq. Davenport Law PLLC

For Defendants: Brian S. Sokoloff, Esq. Chelsea Ella Weisbord Esq. Sokoloff Stern LLP

Lisa M. Griffith, Esq. Steven E. Smith, Esq. Littler Mendelson P.C.

ORDER

Joanna Seybert, United States District Judge Presently before the Court is the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction brought by Plaintiff John Doe (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of his minor child Jane Roe (“Jane”), against Defendants Oceanside Union Free School District (“Oceanside” or the “District”), Dr. Phyllis S. Harrington, Julie McGahan, Dr. J. DeRosa (collectively with the District the “Oceanside Defendants”), and Antwan Haskoor, M.D. (“Dr. Haskoor”) (collectively with the Oceanside Defendants, the “Defendants”). (See ECF No. 5, hereinafter, the “TRO Motion,” see also “Compl.”, ECF No. 1; “Reply,” ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff filed the TRO Motion after the District denied Jane's request for a medical exemption from New York State's school immunization requirements. (TRO Motion at 1); see also N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2164 (“§ 2164”). Consequently, Jane has been barred from school since September 29, 2025. (TRO Motion at 7.) Plaintiff seeks an injunction (1) enjoining and restraining Defendants from barring Jane from school, and (2) compelling Defendants to approve Jane's medical exemption. (Id. at 25.) Plaintiff argues the District's denial violates § 2164(8), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. (TRO Motion at 12-23.) Defendants oppose the TRO Motion. (See “Dr Haskoor Opp'n”, ECF No. 10; “Oceanside Opp'n”, ECF No. 11.) For the reasons stated below, the TRO Motion is DENIED in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

I. Relevant Factual Background

Jane is a five-year-old enrolled at Oceanside's School #6 Early Learning Center (the “School”). (Compl. ¶ 10; TRO Motion at 2^[2].) Since September 29, 2025, she has been barred from School because the District denied her request for a medical exemption from New York State's DTAP, Varicella, MMR, and Polio immunization requirements; she is consequently not receiving instruction or the specialized educational services the District would have provided in connection with her autism spectrum disorder (“ASD”) diagnosis. (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 20, 23; TRO Motion at 2-4; the Denial Letter, Ex. G, ECF No. 5-9, attached to the “Davenport Declaration”, ECF No. 51); see also § 2164 (8).

Plaintiff registered Jane for kindergarten in early 2025, without documentation of any immunization or doctor-approved exemption. (Oceanside Opp'n at 4; DeRosa Declaration at ¶ 12, ECF No. 11-14, attached to the “Sokoloff Declaration”, ECF No. 11-1.) On February 18, 2025, the District emailed Plaintiff, stating it did not have Jane's required immunization paperwork. (Oceanside Opp'n at 4; DeRosa Declaration ¶ 13; February 18, 2025 Registration Email, Ex. H, ECF No. 11-9, attached to the Sokoloff Declaration.)

When the February 18 email did not prompt any action from Plaintiff, the District sent Plaintiff additional emails on March 6, March 19, August 1, and August 6, 2025, which similarly prompted no action. (Oceanside Opp'n at 4; DeRosa Declaration ¶ 13.) On August 26, 2025, a School nurse called Jane's mother, informing her Jane would be barred from the School starting on September 16, 2025 if Plaintiff could not show Jane: (1) had received all required vaccinations; (2) was in the process of receiving them; or (3) was approved for a valid medical exemption. (Oceanside Opp'n at 4-5; Cohen Declaration ¶¶ 5-7, ECF No. 11-16, attached to the Sokoloff Declaration.) Jane's mother indicated over the phone that she would send a medical exemption request, because of Jane's ASD diagnosis. (Cohen Declaration ¶ 7.) Despite her unresolved immunization status, Jane was temporarily admitted to the School in September. (Compl. ¶ 46; TRO Motion at 9.)

On September 5, 2025, Plaintiff submitted a medical exemption request signed by Dr. Eric Goldstein (the “Exemption Request”), which identified the following contraindications:

(a) Re: DTAP: A genetic MTHFR mutation impairing detoxification, increased risk of contraindication due to ASD, and a prior severe reaction of “muscular ticks/seizing” (Compl. ¶ 23; TRO Motion at 4; Exemption Request Packet, Ex. B at 5, ECF No. 53, attached to the Davenport Declaration);

(b) Re: Varicella: Reduced immune function and recurring infections attributed to ASD and a prior vaccine-induced pneumonia; (c) Re: MMR: Immune deficiency and suppression associated with ASD, prior vaccine-induced “muscular twitches and seizure”, and a family history of seizures; and

(d) Re: Polio: Chronic eczema linked to an ingredient contraindication, a family history of asthma, ASD-related ingredient hypersensitivity, and a “severe reaction to the last dose” (Compl. ¶ 23; TRO Motion at 4; Exemption Request Packet at 6.)^[3]

Although § 2164 (8) does not recognize non-medical exemptions, Plaintiff has indicated he has religious objections to vaccinations as well. § 2164 (8); (see also Compl. ¶¶ 115-24; TRO Motion at 16-17; Religious Exemption Request, Ex. N, ECF No. 515, attached to the Davenport Declaration.) Plaintiff's religiousbased objection to vaccinations is informed by his personal religious experiences and interpretation of the Bible, which are rooted in his Catholic faith. (Id.) An undated exhibit shows a letter purportedly authored by Plaintiff, in which he appears to request a religious exemption from the District, although it is unclear whether this letter was ever actually sent. (Religious Exemption Request.)

On September 11, 2025, Dr. Haskoor, the District's medical director, recommended the District deny the Exemption Request. (Compl. ¶¶ 36-37; TRO Motion at 5-6; DeRosa Decl. ¶ 15.) Dr. Haskoor believed the asserted contraindications were not recognized under the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (“ACIP”) standards. (Id.) After discussing Jane's Exemption Request with Dr. Goldstein, his conclusion remained unaltered. (TRO Motion at 5-6; DeRosa Decl. ¶ 16.) On September 15, 2025, School Principal Julie McGahan denied the Exemption Request, because it did not “contai[n] sufficient information to identify a medical contraindication to a specific immunization and specifying the length of time the immunization is medically contraindicated”. (Compl. ¶¶ 26-27; TRO Motion at 11; Initial Rejection Letter, Ex. C, ECF No. 5-4, attached to the Davenport Declaration.) Later that evening, Dr. Goldstein submitted a clarifying addendum, representing the contraindications may be permanent but would be re-evaluated annually. (Compl. ¶¶ 30-31; TRO Motion at 4-5; Exemption Request Addendum, Ex. D, ECF No. 55, attached to the Davenport Declaration.) On September 22, 2025, Principal McGahan requested additional details on Jane's purported adverse reactions. (Compl. ¶¶ 32-33; TRO Motion at 5; Supplemental Request, Ex. E, ECF No. 5-6, attached to the Davenport Declaration.) On September 24, 2025, Plaintiff's counsel sent the District a letter demanding the Exemption Request be granted, adding: “we are prepared to immediately file for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.” (Compl. ¶¶ 41-43; TRO Motion at 6; Demand Letter, Ex. H, ECF No. 5-7, attached to the Davenport Declaration.) On September 26, 2025, Principal McGahan issued a final denial of the Exemption Request, effective September 29, 2025, citing insufficient evidence of a valid contraindication and Plaintiff's lack of cooperation with the District's September 22 request. (Compl. ¶¶ 44-46; TRO Motion at 7; Final Denial Letter, Ex. G, ECF No. 5-8, attached to the Davenport Declaration.)

II. Administrative Appeal & Relevant Procedural Background

On October 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal of the District's decision with the New York State Commissioner of Education (the “Commissioner”), as provided for by N.Y. Education Law § 310 (hereinafter, the “Administrative Appeal”). (Compl. ¶¶ 48-49; TRO Motion at 7; Administrative Appeal Motion, Ex. H, ECF No. 5-9, attached to the Davenport Declaration.) As part of the Administrative Appeal, Plaintiff also requested a stay of the District's denial pending resolution of the appeal. (Id.) On October 10, 2025, the District filed an opposition to the stay request; the stay request was denied on October 15, 2025. (Compl. ¶¶ 49-50; Administrative Appeal Opp'n, Ex. I, ECF No. 510, attached to the Davenport Declaration; Stay Denial, Ex. K, ECF No. 5-12, attached to the Davenport Declaration.) The Commissioner subsequently extended the District's time to respond to the appeal, moving its deadline from November 10 to December 10, 2025. (Compl. ¶ 52; TRO Motion at 7-8; Extension Letter, Ex. P, ECF No. 5-17, attached to the Davenport Declaration.)

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on November 7, 2025, and the TRO Motion on November 11, 2025. (See Compl.; TRO Motion.) The Complaint and TRO Motion allege the District's denial violates: (1) § 2164(8), on grounds the District improperly rejected the Exemption Request; (2) Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, on grounds the Exemption Request is a protected disability-based “reasonable accommodation”; (3) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, on similar “reasonable accommodation” grounds; (4) the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S....