Suit Over Sale of Former Public School To Yeshivas Is Settled

Lower Hudson Journal News reports on the settlement of a lawsuit between the East Ramapo, New York school district and two Orthodox Jewish schools (yeshivas) that are leasing and seeking to purchase an elementary school building that was closed as a public school in 2009. Congregation Bais Malka of Monsey and the Hebrew Academy for Special Children, a religious school for children with special needs, have been renting the former Colton school since 2011. They sued last summer seeking credits for rent paid to reduce the purchase price of the building.  Opponents claim a conflict of interest in the entire transaction since a majority of the school board members are Orthodox Jews whose families use Orthodox Jewish yeshivas. In the settlement agreement, East Ramapo will give the yeshivas over $1 million in rent credits, will waive late fees for rent that was never paid, and give additional credits for repairs that the tenants made. A New York trial court judge finally approved the settlement on Monday, but insisted that it include language that the court does not endorse the findings of fact in the settlement. (See prior related posting.)

Battle Over Estate Raises Issues of Religious Marriage and Interfaith Relations

Estate of Chaim Weisberg, (NY Surr. Ct., April 8, 2014), is a suit over competing claims to administer an estate.  Its underlying narrative offers a fascinating glimpse into religious relationships in the United States.  Chaim Weisberg, who came from an Orthodox Jewish family and apparently continued to practice Judaism, died without a will on Aug. 29, 2012.  His mother (through her daughter as her designee) asserts that Weisberg was unmarried, while Jannah Geaney claims to be Weisberg's wife. Each claims to be the sole distributee of Weisberg's estate and filed competing petitions for administration.

In 2008, Weisberg apparently become romantically interested in Geaney and sought out an acquaintance who had been a tenant of his family for help in arranging an Islamic marriage to Geaney. This led to Wesiberg's converting to Islam at New York's second largest mosque (Madina Masjid), and his marriage to Geaney in a religious ceremony performed by Imam Yousuf Abdul Majid on June 21, 2008.  Apparently the parties did not take out a civil marriage license. Weisberg did not inform his family of the marriage ceremony until January 2012 when he told his sister.  By then the couple's relationship had become troubled. In February Weisberg's attorney drafted, but did not file, a divorce petition.  Instead both parties filed in Family Court for orders of protection against each other. By March 2012, though, the couple said they wanted to reconcile and withdrew the petitions. Less than six months later Weisberg was hospitalized and died.

Weisberg's mother (through her daughter) claimed in court that Weisberg's marriage ceremony was invalid as a matter of Isamic law.  The court ruled, however, that this is a matter of religious doctrine that may not be determined by a civil court.  However the court also refused to grant summary judgment to Geaney, saying:

A religious marriage in New York is valid if conducted in accord with the requirements of New York's Domestic Relations Law. In relevant part, this requires that the couple participate in a religious marriage ceremony, before a member of the clergy authorized to perform such a ceremony and at least one other witness, in which they solemnly declare that they take each other as husband and wife (DRL §§ 11, 12) .

Movant's proof is deficient in two respects. First, she produces no evidence as to the qualifications of Imam Majid to officiate at a marriage. The person officiating must be a "clergyman or minister" of a bona fide religion (DRL § 11[1]).... In this case, however, the record is completely silent as to the source of the imam's religious authority.

Second, the record does not contain a description of the ceremony sufficient to establish that the parties solemnized the marriage. DRL § 12 is explicit that while "[n]o particular form or ceremony is required ... the parties must solemnly declare in the presence of a clergyman and the attending witness or witnesses that they take each other as husband and wife."

The case now proceeds with discovery and trial.

Satmar Community Agrees To Eliminate Official Endorsement of Sex Segregated Playground

The New York Civil Liberties Union reported yesterday that the Village of Kiryas Joel, New York, has settled a Freedom of Information lawsuit brought against it seeking information on the alleged sex segregation of a Village public park.  The media last year reported that the Village, which is comprised predominately of members of the Satmar Hasidic Jewish sect, had constructed a 283-acre playground with one area for women and girls (red benches and playground equipment) and a separate blue area for boys and men. (See prior posting.)  In settling the suit (full text of March 26 Stipulation and Settlement Order), the Village confirmed to the ACLU that it does not have a policy of directing, endorsing or enforcing illegal sex segregation in the Village playground known as Kinder Park.  The settlement authorizes the ACLU to conduct two visits each summer for the next three years to check on its compliance. The ACLU says that the Village has removed Yiddish signs that were previously posted instructing visitors about the sex-segregated areas. The Village also agreed to pay $3000 in petitioners' attorneys' fees. Failed Messiah, reporting on the settlement, claims that the playground will remain voluntarily segregated.

NYC Transit Authority Must Pay $187,000+ In Plaintiffs' Attorneys Fees In Religious Discrimination Suit

In Small v. New York City Transit Authority, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39582 (ED NY, March 25, 2014), a New York federal district court ordered the New York City Transit Authority to pay $187,570 in attorneys fees and $1450 in costs to two Muslim women who has sued the Transit Authority for religious and gender discrimination.  In the lawsuit:

Plaintiffs alleged that defendant removed them from passenger service as bus operators because they wore Muslim head coverings called khimars and refused to wear a hat to cover their khimars.

The suits, after being consolidated with 3 others raising similar claims on behalf of Muslim and Sikh drivers, were settled, granting damages, a new policy on wearing khimars and return of plaintiffs to their jobs.

Salvation Army Settles Suit Challenging Its Religious Mandates To Government Funded Social Service Workers

The New York Civil Liberties Union announced the approval yesterday of a settlement in Lowe v. The Salvation Army, a 10-year old lawsuit on behalf of 19 Salvation Army employees, including two who claim they were fired in retaliation for protesting the imposition of religious requirements on employees paid with government grant money.  A 2003 national reorganization plan by the Salvation Army led to blurring the separation between the organization's government-funded social service programs that employ some 300 people in New York, and its religious mission.  It began to require employees paid with government funds to give information on their religious affiliation and frequency of church attendance, and to commit themselves to providing social services in a manner consistent with the Christian religious principles of the Salvation Army.

In 2010 the NYCLU settled claims against government agencies that had also been sued.  They agreed to monitor the Salvation Army to make sure it does not impose religion on recipients of government-funded social services. In yesterday's settlement, the Salvation Army agreed to provide employees in government-funded positions with a document indicating that it abides by equal employment opportunity provisions as to creed and sexual orientation, will not inquire into employees' religious beliefs, and requires its employees to furnish social services using sound practices without regard to whether they conflict with Salvation Army religious principles. However employees may not undermine the Salvation Army's religious mission. In the settlement, the Salvation Army will also pay $450,000 for damages and attorneys' fees. Newsmax reports on the settlement.

Court Dismisses Challenge To Exclusion of Private Schools From NY Law Protecting Students From Sex Abuse

In Levi v. New York State Assembly, (SD NY, Jan. 29, 2014), a New York federal district court dismissed on sovereign immunity and legislative immunity grounds a suit challenging the legislature's failure to include private schools (including religious schools) in the coverage of a 2001 state law designed to protect school students from sexual abuse by school employees. Plaintiff, whose daughter attends a Modern Orthodox Jewish school, complains that private schools were omitted because of opposition to their coverage by ultra-Orthodox Jews. He contended that the legislature's action violated the 1st and 14th Amendments.

NY Appeals Court: Religious Tract Given Defendant By Deputy Sheriff Does Not Lead To Mistrial

In People of the State of New York v. Robles, (NY App. Div., Jan. 16, 2014), a New York intermediate appellate court held that a lengthy colloquy which the trial judge had with defendant charged with burglary and robbery sufficiently protected defendant's right to decide whether or not to testify at trial, despite improper conduct by a deputy sheriff.  As recounted by the court:

As defendant was being transported from the courtroom to the jail at the conclusion of the second day of trial, a deputy sheriff slipped a religious tract [created by Ten-Four Ministries] into defendant's pocket. The document acknowledged defendant's legal right to remain silent, but exhorted him to forgo that right and confess. "Yes, you have the right to remain silent," it stated. "You have the right to remain in your sins. But please don't. Your conscience testifies against you. Confess your sins . . ." or "spend eternity in a prison called hell." When the parties appeared before Supreme Court the following day, defense counsel moved for a mistrial, arguing that the deputy's actions constituted official interference with defendant's decision on whether to testify.

At trial, defendant did not testify, but was convicted and sentenced to 18 years in prison.  Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Judge Censured For Pressuring Staff To Engage In Prayer and Religious Activity

The ABA Journal reported yesterday on a decision last month by the State of New York Commission on Judicial Conduct censuring Bronx County Judge Mary Brigantti-Hughes for repeatedly using her court staff to perform child care and personal tasks and for asking her staff to pray with her in chambers, attend religious events outside regular working hours and photocopy religious materials. In In re Proceeding in Relation to Mary Brigantti-Hughes, (Dec. 17, 2013), the Commission held that the judge's activities went beyond merely using empty court space during the lunch hour for Bible study or religious meetings that had been approved by the Office of Court Administration. The Commission said:

repeatedly asking her staff to join her in [prayer] sessions misused the prestige of her judicial position, added an element of implicit coercion and crossed the line into impropriety.... Moreover, inviting members of her court staff to attend church-related events after court hours ... was also implicitly coercive.... By creating an environment in which some staff felt pressure to engage in religious activities, her actions impinged on the important separation between church and state, one of the most basic tenets of the federal and state constitutions.

Town Council Member Sworn In As First Open Pastafarian Office Holder

In Pomfret, New York last Friday, Christopher Schaeffer was sworn in as a member of the Town Council wearing a pasta colander on his head-- the traditional headgear of the satirical Pastafarian movement. Gawker reports that this is the first open member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be sworn into public office. Schaeffer told a local newspaper: "It's just a statement about religious freedom. It's a religion without any dogma." [Thanks to Arthur Spitzer for the lead.]

Court Denies Freedom of Information Request For Name of Mohel Who Spread Herpes

In In re Application of Berger and The Jewish Daily Forward v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, (NY Sup Ct Queens Co., Dec. 2, 2013), a New York state trial court rejected an investigative reporter's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request for the name of the Mohel (Jewish ritual circumcision practitioner) who infected an infant with herpes while using the Orthodox Jewish circumcision practice of Metzizah B'Peh (oral suction).  Rules promulgated by the New York City health department require written informed consent from parents for use of the oral suction method. (See prior posting.) In rejecting the FOIL request, the court relied on the statutory exemption for records which "if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy...." The court said:

A person with herpes or any similar communicable disease suffers the same privacy concerns whether or not his business or personal life is concerned. In either instance, their personal privacy concerns are implicated irrespective of their vocational situation. The fact that an infected individual is a Mohel, a sous chef, or a police officer, no less implicates their personal privacy interests, or diminishes the need to keep their health status confidential.... 

The court finds that the disclosure of the names of the reported persons would likely subject the named individuals to vilification in the press, as well as embarrassment and shame in both their business and private life, in addition to possible sanctions for violations of the NYC Health Code if they infected others. The Court is also aware of the difficulties encountered by the New York City Department of Health in obtaining the cooperation of infected persons or members of religious orders in reporting conditions involving the spread of contagion.

The Forward yesterday reported on the decision.

Court Invalidates Couple's Agreement Negotiated Before Bet Din For Lack of Formalities

In Katz v. Katz, (S.Ct. Kings Co. NY, Nov. 7, 2013), a New York trial court held that an agreement negotiated before a Jewish rabbinical court (Bet Din) by a husband and wife is unenforceable because it was not formally acknowledged in the manner required by NY Domestic Relations Law Sec. 236B(3).  As described by the court, the wife argued that she:

was a "victim of extortion" in the sum of $70,000.00 in order to obtain a get, a Jewish divorce, from the husband....  [She] alleges that she only conceded to joint custody and to the parenting access schedule detailed in the May 17, 2010 writing because she "was intimidated to give in to the Defendant's unreasonable demands of custody, visitation and holidays" and that she believed that the husband would not grant her a get [a religious divorce] unless she did so.... She alleges that she placed $50,000.00 in escrow to "guarantee performance" that the husband would grant her a get and that she has "not received [the escrow] money and believes that it has been given to the Defendant, and that he is using [her escrow] money to support this litigation."

The husband denies that the wife was a victim in process of obtaining the get and alleges ... that if the wife "did not agree with the tenets of the Jewish Law and Torah or felt that the process was unfair to her, she did not have to go through the Get process" and that it is "disingenuous of her to receive the benefit of the Get and then attack the Jewish Law and Torah under which it was issued." He "categorically" denies the he received any money from the wife in exchange for him granting her a get. The husband alleges that it is he, not the wife, who is being victimized in this litigation: he alleges that "[i]t is only because [he] did not think [the son] should be traveling to Israel, that [the wife] is now retaliating against [him] by trying to take away what [he] value [sic] most in life — custody of [his] son."