We take actions in the court of law to defend freedom. Currently we have several active lawsuits focused on protecting children, parental rights, first responders, employees, and the people of California.

Summary Update

11/14/2023

  1. RADEMACHER V. ABC
    Former General Hospital star Ingo Rademacher filed this case after his employer, ABC, fired him. ABC said it fired Ingo because he did not get the COVD-19 shot, and they supposedly could not accommodate him as an unvaccinated person, but we have since learned that ABC had already decided to fire Ingo because of his political views—which included supporting PERK in its opposition to COVID vaccine mandates. Our attorneys were in court last month for a lengthy (more than two hours) hearing on ABC’s motion for summary judgment. ABC does not want the case to go to trial. It does not want to put its fate in a jury’s hands. We are waiting for the judge’s ruling, and hope to be in trial this fall.

    Status: 

    The judge entered summary judgment for ABC in June. We believe the order was flawed and will be reversed, so we are challenging the judgment on appeal. We expect the appeal to take most of next year and hope to be back in the trial court in 2025.

  2. ARNOLD V. BAUER
    PERK is supporting this case for educators and administrators who were fired from Granada Hills Charter High School because they did not get the COVID-19 shot. GH Charter has been among the most aggressive schools in the state in pushing mandatory vaccination policies and punishing those who don’t comply. The case is set for trial in November.

    Status: This case is set for trial on March 18, 2024, in Chatsworth. We have made several efforts to settle the case but believe it may just need to be tried and won in public.

  3. SCHNEIDER V. CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
    PERK filed the first lawsuit in California suing the school district for violating the law by illegally providing minors with inappropriate “Gender Affirming” surveys, medically and age-inappropriate curriculum, without proper parent notification. Transitioning a child’s gender, promoting gender affirming treatment, and sexually explicit curriculum to minors without parent’s knowledge or proper consent is illegal. This case argues that the sex ed curriculum adopted by a suburban LA school district violates state law. The school district is trying to get the case dismissed but our attorneys believe we have a good chance to get it at issue and to set an example for how to litigate these issues across California. 

    Status: We defeated most of the school district’s motion to dismiss this case last summer. Nonetheless, the district filed another request to dismiss our updated complaint. The judge will rule on that motion on November 15. If we prevail, the judge will set the case for trial sometime next year.

  4. SATTLEY V. CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
    On behalf of dozens of Beverly Hills Firefighters, PERK launched a lawsuit against the city. The City of Beverly Hills terminated firefighter Josh Sattley after he declined to get the COVID-19 shot and criticized the City’s COVID policies on social media. Josh was the only firefighter to be terminated. He lost millions of dollars in future earnings and was abandoned by his union, which encouraged him to save his job by deleting his social media posts. Josh is a true leader for freedom. After the union abandoned him, PERK stepped up to help.

    Status: We completed briefing on the First Amendment/John Mirisch portion of the appeal and are waiting to get a date for oral argument. Meanwhile, the judge granted summary judgment for the City on Josh’s retaliation claim while denying our request for a continuance to gather more discovery, both of which were improper. So we appealed the judge’s order and will be challenging both her grant of summary judgment on Josh’s retaliation claim and her dismissal of his failure to accommodate (religion). We believe we have a strong chance of reversing both of those orders on appeal and hope to be back in the trial court (with a new judge) in 2025.

  5. TSAI V. LA COUNTY
    PERK challenged LA County’s employee COVID vaccine policy. Our lawsuit helped save thousands of jobs, as the County largely backed off its enforcement efforts during the case. After a year and a half of litigation, the judge dismissed the case, but we are appealing and will be focusing the appeal on our argument that mandatory vaccination policies violate the right to privacy enshrined in the California Constitution. This continues to be an important case, a case that we hope will lead to good appellate law and set precedents for other counties to follow regarding the scope of California’s right to privacy.

    Status: This case was dismissed on appeal after LA County repealed its vaccine policy. Although that was the wrong decision by the Court of Appeal, we declared victory and have transitioned into representing individuals who the County terminated unlawfully or who the County is trying to pressure to waive their rights before they can be re-hired.

  6. PERK/CHD-CA V. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
    PERK/CHD-CA brought its petition and complaint against the Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”), it’s superintendent and board members seeking Writ of Mandate, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Respondents adopted and implemented what has since been declared an illegal COVID-19 vaccine Requirement for LAUSD students which forced them into independent study, subjected them to discrimination and otherwise adverse acts when refusing to comply with the local vaccine Requirement and/or implemented Measures. As the Requirement failed to provide exemptions for religious/personal beliefs and State law fully occupied the statutory scheme related to immunizations, the court in a related matter deemed the local Requirement preempted by state law. Despite preemption, PERK is fighting vigorously in the amendment stage of its initial pleadings to prevent future overreaching by the LAUSD should and when another spread of an infectious disease arises.

    Shortly after the defeat of SB871 in April of 2022, which would have made it a law for kids to be vaccinated against CV19 in order to attend California public and private daycares and up, and the LAUSD’s May vote to “align” its own illegal COVID-19 vaccine mandate with the state’s announced timeline, the Judge in our case, who is the same judge in a sister case filed by Aannestad, Andelin & Corn, LLP - G.F. v. LAUSD - finally ruled that we were always right: that the 1,000+ school districts in the state of California do not have the authority to unilaterally require children to take (new experimental drugs) “vaccines” as a condition to accessing their constitutional right to an education. The only way for this to happen is through the California Legislature or through the California Department of Public Health’s (CDPH) compliance with its statutory obligations under the Health & Safety Code. 2023

    On September 8th, 2023, the court initially scheduled the hearing of LAUSD’s Motion to Dismiss and Demurrer to our Fourth Amended Petition/Complaint in addition to setting a date for trial. The day before, on September 7th, by way of a minute order, the court decided not to address the merits of either motion and instead asked that LAUSD and PERK further inform the court of whether the timing was “ripe”.  The parties must now address whether LAUSD’s practices during Covid-19, which affected in-person education by way of mandate implementation, is a subject that is now too early to be heard when there is no longer a present public health order at issue. The court is not concerned about the “moot” issue as before but is now wanting to make sure the subject is ready to be addressed. The hearing date on the issue of “Ripeness” is scheduled for November 29th, 2023, and the Motion to Dismiss and Demurrer to our Fourth Amended Petition/Complaint in addition to the Trial Setting Conference have all been advanced to the same date. As of November 16, 2023, the parties have been submitting briefings on the “ripeness” issue. The hearing date for all motions and briefings remains the same."

  7. PERK/CHD-CA VS. PIEDMONT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
    We won!
    In January, of 2022 we completely struck down Piedmont Unified School District’s illegal mandate on children 5 and up with no independent study option, a final ruling (no appeal) that caused Oakland Unified to also withdraw its mandate, and likely inspired hundreds of other school districts to do the same. The judge ruled in our favor, granted the stay on the vaccine mandate for children and the school settled the case, agreeing in writing they would not bring back the mandate on children.

  8. PERK (TORO) VS. SAN DIEGO CITY
    Mandate Rescinded!
    The Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids (PERK), on behalf of hundreds of City of San Diego firefighters, police officers, employees, and three individually named plaintiffs; Captain Manuel Del Toro, Jonathan Wiese from the San Diego Police Department, and Captain Justus Norgord from the San Diego Fire Department have secured a critical victory when the City’s unconstitutional vaccine mandate was rescinded for all city first responders and employees. The defendants agreed to a favorable settlement of their lawsuit, conditioned upon the city’s rescinding the mandate. (Case Number 37-2022-00003636-CU-CR-CTL) The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, against the City of San Diego, for declaratory and injunctive relief. The City also agreed to pay a portion of PERK’s legal fees. The case was set for a bench trial in January 2023 and then moved to March 2023.

    This victory means 1.3 million San Diego residents have safer streets and no longer risk losing hundreds of jobs, which directly impact city infrastructure. This victory has secured the future jobs of over 11,000 San Diego public employees and first responders’ jobs who are now protected from illegal mass termination due to intrusive vaccine mandates. Hundreds of essential workers will no longer be eliminated from the workplace, which preserves essential city services and effectively keeps the community of San Diego functioning. The mandate was always unconstitutional as it violated fundamental privacy rights under the California Constitution. Our victory shows the resilience of those who fought back to preserve their inalienable rights and freedoms. This is a great day for all of us on this road of preserving choice.

United SF Freedom Alliance, Bhanu vs. San Francisco

UPDATE: USFA, represented by attorneys John W. Howard, George Wentz, Jr., and Scott J. Street, won against both demurrers. The most recent victory was on November 30, 2022, when the judge overruled CCSF's second demurrer. CCSF's attorney claimed that the privacy claims made in the lawsuit were invalid, but attorney John W. Howard countered all her claims successfully, and the judge agreed with Mr. Howard. See the judgment ruling.

The City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) forced thousands of public employees who served the public of San Francisco during the height of the pandemic in 2020 to take COVID vaccines starting in July 2021 when the pandemic was almost over.

  • Many employees took the vaccines under duress, retired under duress, resigned under duress, or were fired for being unvaccinated.

  • Such employees came together as United SF Freedom Alliance (USFA) and filed a lawsuit against CCSF's mandatory vaccine policy in January 2022.

  • USFA is a voluntary and unincorporated association for City employees whose purpose is to advocate for medical choice and bodily autonomy on behalf of its members.

  • CCSF filed demurrers to get USFA's lawsuit thrown out—twice.

  • USFA, represented by attorneys John W. Howard, George Wentz, Jr., and Scott J. Street, won against both demurrers.

  • The most recent victory was on November 30, 2022, when the judge overruled CCSF's second demurrer.

  • CCSF's attorney claimed that the privacy claims made in the lawsuit were invalid, but attorney John W. Howard countered all her claims successfully, and the judge agreed with Mr. Howard.

PERK Files Lawsuit On Behalf Of Teachers And Educators Of Granada Hills High School 

The First Teachers And Educators in The State Of California Fired For Refusing To Take The Shot

Complaint filed.

Amended Complaint (July 2022)

Granada Hills, Ca., January 19, 2022 
On Friday, Jan. 14, 2022, the Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids (PERK) and five individual educators filed a lawsuit against Brian Bauer, Executive Director of Granada Hills Charter High School (GH Charter) and GH Charter.  The plaintiffs filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, damages based on violations of civil rights, and requested a jury trial. Attorney John Howard and Attorney Scott Street from JW Howard Attorneys, LTD represent the plaintiffs.

PERK Files Lawsuit Against the City of San Diego on Behalf of Hundreds of Firefighters, Police Officers, and City Employees

Complaint Filed

San Diego, Ca., January 28, 2022
On Friday, Jan. 28, 2022, the Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids (PERK), representing hundreds of Firefighters, Police Officers, and City Employees, and three individually named plaintiffs; Jonathan Wiese, Captain Justus Norgood, and Captain Manuel Del Torro, filed a lawsuit against the City of San Diego, for declaratory and injunctive relief, against the unconstitutional vaccine mandate against all first responders and city employees.  These same heroes risked their lives protecting the people of San Diego for decades are now threatened with termination.]

San Diego Lawsuit Letter July 12, 2022

LAUSD Lawsuit

The petition states all the reasons why LAUSD and its board members have no legal authority to issue a Covid-19 vaccine requirement. It also requests that the court inform LAUSD, emphatically, that the vaccine requirement is null and void and LAUSD cannot enforce their illegal mandate.

On Tuesday, July 5, the absolute last day for Judge Beckloff to issue his final ruling on the Writ Petition of Aannestad Andelin & Corn, LLP in their lawsuit, G.F. v. Los Angeles Unified School District case, he did. And he did a complete 180. In his 9 page decision, Judge Beckloff not only reversed himself on his tentative (initial) ruling in AAC’s case, but on his final rulings in both of our preliminary injunction cases. LAUSD dropped the mandates.

Piedmont Unified Lawsuit

In January, we completely struck down Piedmont Unified School District’s illegal mandate on children 5 and up with no independent study option, a finalruling (no appeal) that caused Oakland Unified to withdraw its mandate, and likely inspired hundreds of other school districts to do the same.

LA County First Responders and Public Workers Lawsuit

"PERK joined this lawsuit because of the devastating effect the county's unlawful mandate would have on children and families in Los Angeles," the suit states.

PERK and Firefighters, First Responders Who Risk Their Lives Protecting the City File Lawsuit Against the City of Beverly Hills

Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids (PERK) and two individual firefighters, filed a LAWSUIT AGAINST CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS ON BEHALF OF MORE THAN 21 FIREFIGHTERS to stop the unlawful Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate.

For Immediate Release in Los Angeles, California, December 14, 2021
On Dec. 10, 2021, Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids (PERK) on behalf of two dozen individual firefighters, filed a lawsuit against the City of Beverly Hills, Muntu Davis - the Health Officer of Los Angeles County, the City of Beverly Hills, and the County of Los Angeles, was filed on Friday Dec.10, 2021 in Los Angeles Superior Court. Attorneys Scott Street and Attorney John Howard represent the plaintiffs.  

The plaintiffs filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages based on violations of civil rights, and a demand for a jury trial. The lawsuit declares that the mandate exceeds the county’s authority under state law, is unconstitutional, is a violation of privacy under the California State Constitution, and is a violation of the US. Constitution’s 1st amendment religious rights.

Plaintiffs PERK and Firefighters Josh Sattley, Ettore Berardinelli, Jr. allege that despite their essential, (and arguably courageous and heroic) efforts to protect and serve city residents during the entire pandemic, while others sheltered in place, these firefighters (including the unnamed firefighters) are now being required to take the vaccine –against their will– or lose their jobs!

Despite evidence of limited and waning effectiveness of the vaccines,  including the fact they don’t stop transmission, emergency authorization, and evidence of significant adverse effects, the City of Beverly Hills has demanded universal vaccinations for city employees.

The lawsuit also contends that the City of Beverly Hills has subjected Mr. Sattley and Mr. Berardinelli, and others firefighters, to extreme pressure when they requested religious exemptions, and that they put Mr. Sattley on unpaid leave, which is a violation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Skelly V. State Personnel, his right to due process, and rights under the state law Firefighter Bill of Rights.

This vaccine mandate is also a violation of their civil rights, and constitutional rights and constitutes religious discrimination under state and federal law.

Additionally, the Beverly Hills firefighters -like all Californians- have the right to bodily integrity and the right to refuse medical treatment, which the County and City’s Vaccine Mandate and actions violate.

Public employees and first responders have already experienced segregation, harassment, discrimination and coercion based on their vaccination status. This has a serious impact on those firefighters, their families, co-workers, the fire department, city, county and the public at large. This type of coercion and intimidation by the City of Beverly Hills and County of Los Angeles has a deleterious and chilling effect on it’s residents.

Get Involved

Subscribe to our newsletter.