DOE v. BOYERTOWN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT et al

Filing 69

ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FILED BY PLAINTIFFS (DOC. NO. 16) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 8/25/17. 8/25/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(td, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOEL DOE, a minor, by and through his
guardians, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE;
MARY SMITH; JACK JONES, a Minor,
by and through his parents, JOHN JONES
and JANE JONES; and MACY ROE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BOYERTOWN AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT; DR. RICHARD FAIDLEY, in
his official capacity as superintendent of the
Boyertown Area School District; DR.
BRETT COOPER, in his official capacity as
principal; and DR. E. WAYNE FOLEY, in
his official capacity as assistant principal,
Defendants,
and
PENNSYLVANIA YOUTH CONGRESS
FOUNDATION,
Intervenor-Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-1249

ORDER
AND NOW, this 25th day of August, 2017, after considering the motion for a
preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiffs, Joel Doe, a minor, by and through his guardians,
John Doe and Jane Doe, Mary Smith, Jack Jones, a minor, by and through his parents, John
Jones and Jane Jones, and Macy Roe (Doc. No. 16); and after all considering (1) the response in
opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the defendants, Boyertown Area
School District, Dr. Richard Faidley, Dr. Brett Cooper, and Dr. E. Wayne Foley (Doc. No. 34);
(2) the response in opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the intervenor-

defendant, Pennsylvania Youth Congress Foundation (Doc. No. 33); (4) the reply brief in support
of the motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiffs (Doc. No. 36); (5) the proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by all parties (Doc. Nos. 46-48, 57-59); (6) the
Pennsylvania Youth Congress’s supplement to its proposed findings of fact and the plaintiffs’
response thereto (Doc. Nos. 65, 66); the amended complaint (Doc. No. 8); and after considering
all of the evidence presented during the evidentiary hearings held on July 17, 2017 and July 31,
2017, along with the evidence separately submitted by counsel at the time of oral argument on
August 11, 2017; and after hearing oral argument from the parties on August 11, 2017; and for
the reasons set forth in the separately filed memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that
the motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Edward G. Smith
EDWARD G. SMITH, J.

2