UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

MASON WICKS-LIM, a minor through his

mother and next friend ALI WICKS-LIM
865 Belchertown Road
Amherst, MA 01002
and
TRINITY (Sam) PICONE-LOURO, a minor
through her mother and next friend,
NATALIE PICONE-LOURO,
215 Lockes Village Road
Wendell, MA 01739
Complainants,
v.

COMPLAINT

THE YOUNG SHAKESPEARE PLAYERS,

1806 West Lawn Avenue
Madison, WI 53711
and
THE YOUNG SHAKESPEARE PLAYERS
EAST,
71A Avenue A
Turners Falls, MA 01376
Respondents.
COMPLAINT
Mason Wicks-Lim (Mason) and Trinity Picone-Louro (Sam), both minors, by
and through their parents as next friends and through counsel, hereby file this Complaint
against The Young Shakespeare Players and the Young Shakespeare Players East
(collectively Respondents) alleging that Respondents have engaged in and continue to
engage in unlawful discrimination and retaliation against them in violation of the

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12181-12189.

PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Mason Wicks Lim, is a minor who resides at 865 Belchertown Road,
Amherst, Massachusetts. Mason is an individual with a disability. He was diagnosed with
a life-threatening allergy to peanuts and tree nuts by the age of three after experiencing
anaphylactic reactions. As a result of his allergy, Mason must have access at all times to
epinephrine autoinjectors1 and must be in the presence of adults willing and able to
administer epinephrine in the event of allergic reaction.
2. Plaintiff, Sam Picone-Louro, is a minor who resides at 215 Lockes Village Road,
Wendell, Massachusetts. She is a close friend and associate of Mason Wicks-Lim. Sam
advocated for Masons rights pursuant to federal and state disability law in connection
with Respondents programs and activities and was punished as the result of her
advocacy for an individual with a disability.
3. Respondent, The Young Shakespeare Players, is headquartered at 1806 West
Lawn Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin. It is a non-profit organization offering recreational
and education programs to children ages 7-18. Upon information and belief, Young
Shakespeare Players has management authority over The Young Shakespeare Players
East and controls its policies and practices.
4. Respondent, The Young Shakespeare Players East, is headquartered at the Shea
Theater located at 71A Avenue A, Turners Falls. Massachusetts. It is a chapter of The
Young Shakespeare Players and offers recreational and educational programs to children
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1

!Epinephrine autoinjectors are devices that administer a pre-measured dosage of

epinephrine in the event of allergic reaction. The most commonly known version of
epinephrine autoinjector is marketed under the tradename, Epipen.

between the ages of 7-18. Upon information and belief, The Young Shakespeare Players
East operates under the authority of The Young Shakespeare Players and follows The
Young Shakespeare Players policies and procedures.
JURISDICTION
5. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12188, the United States Department of Justice is
invested with the authority to investigate violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
INTRODUCTION
How far that little candle throws his beams!
So shines a good deed in a naughty world.
-William Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice
6. Mason Wicks-Lim is ten years old. He loves the outdoors, modular origami, and
Greek mythology. He is an avid reader who in the Spring of 2015 became interested in
the works of William Shakespeare. Although Mason is quiet, he wanted to study
Shakespeare and overcome his shyness by performing in a Shakespearean play. Mason is
also severely allergic to nuts. He carries epinephrine that must be administered quickly in
the event of an allergic reaction. Masons reactions to nuts are severe. When exposed he
goes into anaphylaxis which is a life threatening reaction.
7. Mason is home schooled and is part of a learning co-operative. Many of his peers
in the cooperative share Masons interest in Shakespeare and participate in the programs
offered to the children and teens by the Respondents.
8. Masons parents supported Masons burgeoning interest in Shakespeare by
attempting to sign him up for the Fall 2015 program offered by Respondents.
9. Respondents are a non-profit organization that operates theater programs for

young people ages 7-18. The Young Shakespeare Players was founded in 1980 and is
based in Madison, Wisconsin. The Young Shakespeare Players East was founded is based
in Turners Falls, Massachusetts and is a chapter of The Young Shakespeare Players.
10. The Young Shakespeare Players East, upon information and belief, operates under
the guidance and direction of The Young Shakespeare Players using the same materials
and methods rules and policies as The Young Shakespeare Players.
11. The Respondents maintain that their programs are open to all young people,
stating explicitly that there are no auditions, that everyone get a substantial part, that
they are engaged in helping young people find a voice through understanding, that they
foster[s] a culture of inclusiveness, and that they are committed to the principal that
no one should be excluded from participation
12. Respondents profess that they strive to bring out the best that this species has to
offer.
13. On May 10, 2015, Mason attended the Respondents performance of Julius
Caesar at the Shea Theater in which a number of his peers performed. Masons mother,
Ms. Wicks-Lim, contacted the Respondents shortly thereafter to start the process of
enrolling Mason in the Respondents Fall program.
14. The Director of The Young Shakespeare Players East, Suzanne Rubinstein,
responded that she wanted to talk about Masons allergies.
15. Between May 10, 2015 and May 22, 2015, Ms. Rubinstein engaged in three
telephone calls with Ms. Wicks-Lim.
16. During their first telephone conversation, Ms. Wicks-Lim requested basic
accommodations to allow Mason to safely participate in Respondents programs. When

told that Mason carries epinephrine with him, Ms. Rubinstein responded, See? No.
Thats just scary.
17. Ms. Rubinstein informed Ms. Wicks-Lim that Respondents were lucky not to
have had a child with food allergies attend their programs in the past with the exception
of one older allergic child [in Madison] who didnt mind being excluded.
18. Ms. Rubinstein refused to make needed accommodations. Ms. Rubinstein further
suggested that Mason might not want to enroll in Respondents programs because he
could expect to be consistently excluded.
19. In their second telephone call, Ms. Wicks-Lim again told Ms. Rubinstein that
Mason wanted to enroll even if it meant he would be excluded socially. Ms. Rubinstein
responded that it was not up to Mason or Ms. Wicks-Lim whether Mason enrolled.
Thereafter, Ms. Rubinstein informed Ms. Wicks-Lim that the program was not a good fit
for Mason but that she might reconsider the following year when Mason was older.
20. Ms. Wicks-Lim asked Ms. Rubenstein to reconsider, telling her that Mason had
successfully been managing his allergy for 8 years, that he would not outgrow his allergy
the following year, and that he had begun studying The Tempest and was excited to be a
part of the Respondents program.
21. Ms. Rubinstein refused to reconsider, advising Ms. Wicks-Lim that Respondents
programs were successful because the program changes for no one. Ms. Rubinstein
further advised Ms. Wicks-Lim that she had consulted with The Young Shakespeare
Players leadership and that her response was consistent with and directed by that
leadership. Ms. Rubinstein abruptly ended the call.
22. Ms. Wicks-Lim informed Ms. Rubinstein that severe food allergies can be

considered a disability within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
that the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibited discrimination and required
accommodations be made for kids with disabilities.
23. On May 22, 2015, Ms. Wicks-Lim again contacted Ms. Rubinstein asking that
they reconsider but Respondents against refused to allow Mason to enroll because of his
allergy.
24. That night, Ms. Wicks-Lim contacted Natalie Picone-Louro and some other
parents with children in YSP to ask for advice and support. Natalie Picone-Louros
daughter, Sam, was in Masons cooperative and was enrolled in Respondents programs.
25. Sam is 12 years old. Like Mason, Sam is an avid reader with eclectic tastes in
music. She prefers Julius Caesar to Twelfth Night, expressionism to modernism, and
loves to swim. Sam can talk with ease about her favorite Shakespearean characters. Sam
may speak quietly, but she is a loyal friend with a keen sense of empathy and the courage
to stand up to injustice.
26. Sam loved being a part of Respondents programs. She gained confidence and
looked forward to time learning with her friends. Sam understood the mission of the
Respondents programs to be inclusion.
27. When Sam learned that Respondents were not allowing her friend, Mason, to
enroll because of his disability, she asked Respondents to allow Mason to attend,
reminding Respondents of the importance of inclusion, and standing up for her friends
right to equal access.
28. Sams email to Ms. Rubinstein stated:
Hi Suzanne, this is Sam.

I heard what happened with Mason and I am very surprised and disappointed on how
you are handling this situation.
My friend has a nut allergy which is a disability and saying that we are a private
organization and you don't have to follow those laws is an excuse and you are defending
something that is not worth defending. You are discriminating him. I personally feel you
have more of the issue than YSP does.
I feel that if I share this with YSP people they wouldn't have a problem not bringing
nuts. They would be open and cooperative in protecting Mason. You said yourself there
are no rejections and you are rejecting Mason.
It is important to practice what you preach. Sam (See Ex. 1.)
29. Respondents responded swiftly and punitively. Ms. Rubinstein contacted Sam
and her mother informing them, The presumptuous and accusatory tone in your email
was disrespectful to me and works against all of the principals that make YSP work. If
you cannot trust our decision or our motivations for making them, it might be best for
you to find a different program instead.
30. Ms. Rubinstein also contacted Ms. Wicks-Lim referencing Sams email and
stating I certainly hope this is the last time I receive a note from a child advocating in
this way and concluding if the issue could be layed to rest, she would revisit Masons
participation next year. (See Ex. 2.)
31. Ms. Rubinstein also sent an email to all staff and to all families enrolled at
Respondents programs that was clearly identifiable as being about Mason and claiming
that there were concerns his physical and emotional well-being. Ms. Rubinstein further
informed the entirety of Respondents students, families and staff that Respondents
cannot always accommodate the necessary support a child or family might need that
Respondents programs are not for everyone, and discouraging other families from
engaging in dissent or discourse over the denial of enrollment into the program. (See Ex.

3.)
32. Ms. Picone-Louro emailed Ms. Rubinstein on May 25, 2015 stating, [Sams]
father and I are very proud of her for standing up for what she believes in and telling
Ms. Rubinstein that she was leaving it up to Sam whether to apologize in order to stay in
the program or not.
33. On June 1, 2015, Ms. Rubinstein met with Ms. Picone-Louro to discuss Sams
email asserting Masons right to equal access. Ms. Rubinstein stated that she felt sorry
for Mason because his mom ruined everything for him and that Ms. Wicks-Lim
presented a threat to Respondents program.
34. Ms. Rubinstein stated that both Sam and her parents must separately write
apologies for their advocacy on behalf of Mason and email the apologies to other families
enrolled in Respondents program with a cc to Ms. Rubinstein. Ms. Rubinstein indicated
that unless Ms. Picone-Louro and Sam complied, Sam would be removed and barred
from Respondents programs.
35. On June 5, 2015, Ms. Rubinstein restated the need for Sam to apologize for
advocating for her friend Mason:
I would like to make it very clear that if Sam wants to return to YSP and
participate in YSP's fall production of The Tempest, she still needs to email me her
apology. And, an apology letter that clearly shows insight and understanding of what she
has done wrong and one that expresses a commitment to carrying forth a positive and
respectful attitude towards me and the entire YSP community.
Also, just so everyone is on the same page, this fall production will be a
probationary period to make sure everybodys attitudes and behavior is in line with the
YSP community spirit and expectations. YSP reserves the right to make all final
decisions regarding participation in its programs.
I look forward to receiving Sam's apology and seeing her at YSP in the fall. (See
Ex. 4)

36. Ms. Picone-Louro could not bring herself to require Sam to apologize for what
she viewed as courageous behavior in standing up for Masons right to equal access. On
July 4, 2015, she wrote Ms. Rubinstein:
With time and space being given with what has happened, and after much careful
and heartfelt consideration, we are writing to let you know that we are not aligned with
the request for an apology for what you have labeled as Sam's "disrespect".
We are not comfortable with her having to craft an appropriate apology, and then
additionally being penalized by being placed on tentative status via the probation you
proposed. You spoke with me on the phone before Sam joined YSP about what YSP
represents, and your request is not congruent with the ideals of the organization.
Basically you are saying the youth have a voice and they get to speak up for themselves,
but it seems this applies only as long as they aren't questioning you.
Sam's email was about social justice. It was about standing by a friend, and
standing up for what she believes in. Discrimination was the context. To respond to an 11
yr old who is passionate and acting with integrity by demanding she apologize for being
disrespectful, is communicating to her that only part of her heart is welcome in the
program, not all of her. You, and the organization you represent which claims to "foster
inclusiveness and collaboration", help young people "find a voice" and "bring out the
beauty of 'the best this species has to offer'", are silencing her.
We hope you will reconsider the terms you have set forth.
Ex. 5.
37. Ms. Rubinstein responded, the organization stands firmly [sic] that I deserve the
respect of a formal written apology from Sam and kicked Sam out of the program. (See
Ex. 6).
38. Sam was devastated to be kicked out of the program. She remains barred from
participation in any of Respondents programs as the result of her advocacy on Masons
behalf.
39. Meanwhile, in July 2015, Ms. Rubinstein met to discuss the situation with an

intermediary who advocated for Mason to be permitted to enroll. Ms. Rubinstein

indicated that she would draft a waiver and allow Mason into the program conditioned
upon his parents signing that waiver.
40. Weeks passed and Ms. Wicks-Lim had not received the promised waiver. Ms.
Wicks-Lim contacted Ms. Rubinstein to inquire about the waiver and was informed that
The Young Shakespeare Players in Madison were working on it.
41. On July 28, 2015, Ms. Rubinstein emailed Ms. Wicks-Lim a waiver. The waiver
specified that Respondents would not agree to administer epinephrine in the event of an
allergic reaction and that medications remained the sole responsibility of the parents.
42. At the same time, Ms. Rubinstein indicated that Ms. Wicks-Lim must not only
sign the waiver but must meet with the Board of Directors regarding the conditions for
Masons enrollment.
43. Ms. Wicks-Lim responded on July 29, 2015, suggesting that she meet with Ms.
Rubinstein face to face so they could clear the air and start fresh. Ms. Wicks-Lim further
explained that Mason could only attend Respondents programs if Respondents agreed to
administer epinephrine in the event of an allergic reaction and that signing the waiver
would be unsafe.
44. Ms. Wicks-Lim offered Respondents free training related to allergies and
epinephrine to be provided at no cost to Respondents by a national non-profit with
expertise in food allergies.
45. Ms. Rubinstein suggested that Ms. Wicks-Lim commit to attending Respondents
programs with Mason so that Respondents would not have to be responsible for
administration of epinephrine. This is a departure from Respondents operation in that

parents of children without disabilities do not attend the program with their children.
46. Ms. Wicks-Lim responded that she was willing to attend the Board meeting but
could not be present for nine hours of rehearsals every week.
47. Ms. Wicks-Lim requested to meet with Ms. Rubinstein. Although Ms. Rubinstein
initially agreed, she thereafter indicated she would only meet with Ms. Wicks-Lim with
the Board of Directors present.
48. On August 3, 2015, Ms. Rubinstein indicated that she would meet with Ms.
Wicks-Lim before the meeting in which the Board of Directors would inform Ms. WicksLim of further conditions of Masons enrollment. However, Ms. Rubinstein indicated that
before meeting with Ms. Wicks-Lim she was waiting for guidance from The Young
Shakespeare Players (Madison) attorney.
49. On August 4, 2015, Ms. Rubinstein again emailed Ms. Wicks-Lim stating that
Respondents would not administer epinephrine. Ms. Rubinstein stated that Respondents
founder, Board of Directors, and attorney all agreed that Ms. Rubinstein would not be
professionally trained to administer epinephrine, even though free training had been
offered, and would not administer epinephrine in the event of an allergic reaction.
50. On August 6, 2015, Ms. Rubinstein emailed Ms. Wicks-Lim and indicated that
she had consulted with an ADA expert about YSPs legal obligations. Ms. Rubinstein
acknowledged that the accommodations Ms. Wicks-Lim had requested were legally
required. Ms. Rubinstein continued, Therefore, I am seriously considering whether I
want to continue to operate the program at allI will have to make a big decision
whether to close up shop.
51. On August 14, 2015, Ms. Wicks-Lim reiterated that Mason did want to enroll but

before he could do so, Ms. Wicks-Lim needed clarification of what accommodations

Respondents would make to allow him to attend. Specifically, Ms. Wicks-Lim needed to
know whether Respondents would agree to undergo the free training and administer
epinephrine in the event of allergic reaction.
52. On August 21, 2015, Ms. Rubenstein advised Ms. Wicks-Lim that the Board of
Directors had met and agreed to implement a peanut and tree nut free snack and lunch
policy and that Ms. Wicks-Lim could show Ms. Rubinstein how to use an epi-pen. Ms.
Rubinstein also informed Ms. Wicks-Lim that its Board of Directors had specified that
before enrolling a child with food allergies, parents must be made aware that staff would
not be present, would not know how to handle emergencies, and that there would be
hours at a time including full days when the children would be left unsupervised.
53. Ms. Rubinstein provided a waiver for Ms. Wicks-Lim to sign before enrollment
which like the prior waivers stated The Young Shakespeare Players East does not
warrant that it will provide any staff members or volunteers with medical training or any
other expertise in the treating or care of anyone who has or develops illness, injuries,
allergies, or disabilities at any rehearsal, performance, nor other YSP event. In the event
that my child has or develops medical concerns, I acknowledge and agree that I, as parent
or guardian, take complete responsibility for such concerns, and for the health and
welfare of my child. This waiver is an acknowledgement that my childs health issues are
the responsibility of me and my family, and not that of The Young Shakespeare Players
East, Inc., or its officers, agents, volunteers, and employees.
54. Ms. Wicks-Lim repeated her request in an email on August 25, 2015 stating Can
you please let me know whether there will be an adult present in the building and willing

to administer epinephrine at all times? The waiver you attached again indicates that the
parent is responsible and that the children in YSP are unsupervised for full days at a time.
Can you please clarify whether YSP will commit to administer epinephrine to Mason in
the event of an allergic reaction? We need that information to make a decision, for
Mason.
55. Respondents refused to reconsider their position.
56. Given Respondents position that Mason would be unsupervised for hours and
full days and given the requirement that Ms. Wicks-Lim sign a waiver indicating that
she, rather than Respondents, would be responsible for administering epinephrine, Mason
was unable to enroll in the program.
57. Ms. Rubinstein and Respondents engaged in a deliberate pattern of behavior with
the express intent of steering Mason and his family away from Respondents programs
because of Masons disability and of making it crystal clear that he was not welcome.
58. Mason remains interested and enthusiastic about the works of William
Shakespeare but the experience with Respondents has been difficult and isolating. He is
embarrassed that friends will ask why he is not in Respondents program. Mason wants
to enroll in Respondents programs but cannot do so because Respondents refuse to
administer epinephrine in the event of allergic reaction.
59. Sam likewise retains a love of Shakespeare, but she misses Respondents
programs greatly. She struggles with accepting that the adults she respected have cast her
out because she stood up for what she believed to be right. She wants to return to
Respondents programs, but is barred by Respondents from doing so.
COUNT I
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

60. Plaintiffs incorporate allegations contained in paragraphs 1-59.

61. Mason Wicks-Lims food allergies to peanuts and tree nuts are an impairment that
impacts multi-body systems including his immune system, cardiovascular system,
digestive system, and circulatory system with potentially life-threatening consequences.
He is substantially limited in the major life activities of eating and breathing. When
Mason ingests even minute quantities of his allergens his immune system responds
causing a critical drop in blood pressure that absent administration of epinephrine can
lead to irreversible organ failure and death. Mason Wicks-Lim is therefore an individual
with a disability.
62. Sam Picone-Louro is a friend of Masons and stood up for his federally protected
rights pursuant to federal and state disability law. She is therefore an individual who is
associated with an individual with a disability.
63. Respondents are a place of public accommodation and must therefore make
reasonable modifications in policies, practices and procedures to ensure equal access to
individuals with disabilities.
64. As a place of public accommodation, Respondents cannot refuse to administer
epinephrine to an individual with a disability.
65. Respondents discriminated against Mason in violation of the ADA in denying him
access to its programs, in attempting to steer him away from enrollment, in refusing to
administer epinephrine, in humiliating him with the programs participants, in requiring
Masons parents to administer epinephrine at its programs, and in threatening to shut
down the program if Mason persisted in trying to enroll.
66. Respondents retaliated against Mason for the assertion of his federally protected

rights by threatening to shut down the program if he tried to enroll and by inaccurately
informing all of its students and their families that he could not safely participate
physically and emotionally. Respondents grossly violated Masons privacy in its ongoing
effort to steer him away from its programs.
67. Respondents discriminated against Sam in violation of the ADA by kicking her
out of the program because of her association with an individual with a disability.
68. Respondents retaliated against Sam in violation of the ADA because of her
assertion of Sams right to equal access.
69. As the direct result of Respondents deliberate actions, Mason and Sam suffered
harm, including humiliation, embarrassment, and sadness.
70. Respondents persist in preventing Sam and Mason to enroll in their programs
because of Masons disability and Sams assertion of Masons federally protected rights.
WHEREFORE Complainants pray for relief and judgment as follows:
a. Declare that Respondents discriminated against Mason by denying him access to
its programs, attempting to steer him away from enrollment, refusing to administer
epinephrine, requiring Masons parents to administer epinephrine at its programs, and
threatening to shut down the program if Mason persisted in trying to enroll;
b. Declare that Respondents retaliated against Mason by denying him equal access
to its programs based on his assertion of his needs as an individual with a disability;
c. Declare that Respondents discriminated against Sam based on her association
with Mason, an individual with a disability;
d. Declare that Respondents retaliated against Sam when they required her to
apologize for asserting Masons right of equal access and by removing and barring her

from their programs because of her advocacy for Mason;

e. Declare that Respondents must enroll Mason and Sam in Respondents program
and further requiring Respondents to submit to training and agree to administer
epinephrine in the event of allergic reaction;
f. Require Respondents to cease and desist in all efforts to steer children with
disabilities away from enrolling it its programs;
g. Require Respondents to adopt policies and practices consistent with federal law
and advertise its compliance with said laws;
h. Compensatory damages as available;
i. Civil Penalties;
j. Injunctive relief;
k. Equitable relief;
l. Reasonable attorneys fees and costs;
m. All other appropriate declaratory, equitable, injunctive, and monetary relief.

DATED:

November 3, 2015
STEIN & VARGAS, LLP
/s/Mary C. Vargas
Mary C. Vargas
Michael S. Stein
Stein & Vargas, LLP
5100 Buckeystown Pike, Suite 250
Frederick, MD 21704
(240)793-3185
Michael. [email protected]
[email protected]
Laurel Francoeur, BBO#633085
Francoeur Law Office

13 Freedom Road
Woburn, MA 01801
(781) 710-1173
[email protected]