A pattern of incompetence:
Why the School Board’s lawsuits always fail.
The Massapequa School Board has been involved in 8 voluntary lawsuits since 2020.
They have won zero of them
A voluntary lawsuit is one in which the district is a plaintiff, meaning they are suing, and are not being sued, and there is no legal basis compelling them to file a lawsuit.
A Breakdown of The Massapequa BOE Voluntary Lawsuits
Let’s focus on these lawsuits and their lack of standing
What is lack of standing?
For a lawsuit to be considered, the parties must have capacity and must demonstrate harm.
Capacity: Does the party have the authority to bring the lawsuit?
Harm: Can the party point to specific personal injury or harm that could be fixed by a court ruling?
Specific: Has to be a noted instance. Not general “harm”.
Personal: Has to have happened to the filing party, not on someone else’s behalf
Fixed: Has to be something the court could repair with an order
When the district filed the Mask Mandate lawsuit in 2021, it didn’t make much sense.
There was another lawsuit moving through the courts set to achieve the same goal that had a stronger legal argument. There was no lasting legal advantage to filing a suit. Legal experts predicted it would be dismissed on the grounds that the state was acting well within its legal authority, but the actual ruling taught the board and their legal team something very important:
Lawsuits filed by the board against the state lack capacity because the state cannot sue itself.
Here is what the judge said in his ruling:
“Municipal entities — counties, towns and school districts — do not have the inherent power to sue the State itself.”
- Hon. Henry F. Zwack, presiding judge on the Mask Mandate Lawsuit
Who is considered “the state”?
If plaintiffs include “SCHOOL DISTRICT”, “BOARD OF EDUCATION”, or an individual listed as “in their capacity as a Board Member”, they are considered acting as “the state” and do not have capacity to bring the lawsuit.
If defendants include NYS governing bodies
(department of education, board of regents, etc),
or individuals “in their official capacity”
(Governor Hochul, Ed. Commissioner Betty Rosa, etc)
they are acting as “the state” and cannot be sued by “the state”.
But that’s not the only reason the Mask Mandate case was dismissed. The judge also addressed harm:
“Petitioners have likewise failed to establish injury in fact, which would have given them standing if they had capacity to sue in the first instance.”
He’s saying that even if the district had capacity, they had not demonstrated harm. Here he cites a lack of specific harm:
“Petitioners have alleged no injury…”
This means as of 2021 the Massapequa BOE knows they must have capacity and demonstrate harm for a lawsuit to be successful.
But when the Massapequa School District brought the first Mascot lawsuit, they still listed the school district, board of education, and an individual in their official capacity.
In March of 2025, the Mascot lawsuit was dismissed for the exact same reason as the Mask Mandate lawsuit.
Here is what the judge said in her ruling:
“Municipalities and other local governmental corporate entities and their officers lack capacity to mount constitutional challenges to acts of the State and State legislation.”
She added:
“This rule is well-established and long-standing.”
Concluding with:
“Because Plaintiffs lack capacity to sue, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear their claims.”
- Judge Margo K. Brodie, presiding judge on the 1st Mascot Lawsuit
Additionally, the judge weighed in on the board’s failure to show harm.
“Plaintiffs’ assertions regarding potential enforcement consequences are speculative and insufficient to establish injury in fact.”
“...Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate irreparable harm…”
- Judge Margo K. Brodie, presiding judge on the 1st Mascot Lawsuit
Judge Brodie allowed the district to amend their complaint to fix
“the defects”.
A smart move would have been to remove the district, board, and official members and allow Ms. Caramore to proceed in her capacity as a “resident/parent”.
Instead, the board kept the same plaintiffs. The board brought in the Native American Guardians Association (NAGA) to file another lawsuit on the board’s behalf, and signed a “contract” where NAGA “licensed” the mascot to Massapequa.
The Board submitted their amended case. On November 14th, a new judge dismissed the mascot lawsuit for a second time for the exact same reasons.
“…they have recycled their prior allegations almost word for word and added a host of new claims that resemble constitutional word salad.”
He affirmed the district has no standing:
"Municipal corporate bodies—counties, towns and school districts—are merely subdivisions of the State … and so for either to sue New York State is akin to a party suing itself."
"Massapequa and its Board, having had multiple attempts to file a complaint that survives dismissal, are denied further leave to amend."
- Judge Sanket J. Bulsara, presiding judge on NAGA and 1st Mascot Lawsuit
The board and NAGA’s “contract” was a legal maneuver. The thought was by banning the mascot, the district would be “forced” to “breach” their contract and cause “injury” to NAGA. It was an attempt to manufacture harm, and Judge Sanket recognized it as such.
NAGA’s lawsuit was also dismissed.
Here is what the judge said in his ruling:
“NAGA’s entry onto the scene was a clever attempt to cure Massapequa’s standing problems and its inability to sue the State of New York.”
He went on to say:
“NAGA does not own the Chiefs name, logo, or imagery, nor does it control Massapequa’s use of them [...] It is a contract in name only.”
- Judge Sanket J. Bulsara, presiding judge on NAGA and 1st Mascot Lawsuit