9th Circuit: Homeowner's Intrusive Christmas Display at Center of Fragmented Decision on Fair Housing Act Claims

 In Morris v. West Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Association, Inc., (9th Cir., June 17, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed an Idaho federal district court's rejection of a jury's verdict against a Homeowner's Association charged by plaintiff with violating provisions of the Fair Housing Act. At issue was efforts by the Homeowners Association to prevent plaintiffs from purchasing a home in the subdivision because of plaintiffs' plans to put on at their home a multi-day Christmas festival with thousands of lights, a live nativity scene, costumed characters and a real camel, all in order to raise funds for charity. A letter from the Homeowners Association to plaintiffs included a sentence reading: "And finally, I am somewhat hesitant in bringing up the fact that some of our residents are non-Christians or of another faith and I don’t even want to think of the problems that could bring up."

Judge Berzon's opinion, reflecting the conclusion of a majority of the 3-judge panel, held that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of religious discrimination in violation of §3604(b) the Fair Housing Act, saying in part:

... [T]o support a disparate treatment claim, plaintiffs must be able to point to some concrete adverse impact suffered as a result of the defendants’ behavior.  The Morrises have pointed to no such harm.

Similarly she held that the evidence did not support claims of a violation of §3604(c), saying in part:

Viewing the letter as a whole, an ordinary reader would understand the Board to have indicated a preference, limitation, or discrimination based not on whether the prospective homeowners were themselves religious or nonreligious, Christian or atheist, but on whether the event they proposed to host once a year would disturb the neighbors, both by its size and raucousness and by offending non-Christians. 

However, the court upheld the jury's conclusion that the Homeowners Association violated §3617 of the Act, saying in part:

The Board’s letter to the Morrises could reasonably be read to indicate that the program’s association with the Christian faith was one consideration in the Board’s opposition to the show....

These statements sufficiently support an inference by the jury that an anti-Christian purpose was at least a motivating factor in the Board’s conduct regarding the proposed Christmas event, independent of any other concerns also underlying that conduct.  And given this permissible inference, there was sufficient evidence for the jury rationally to conclude that the Board interfered with the Morrises’ exercise of their right to purchase and enjoy their home at least in part because of their religious expression, and therefore violated § 3617 of the FHA.

Judge Berzon went on to conclude that on the facts of this case, the Homeowners Association was not liable for harassing conduct of subdivision residents.

Judge Tashima dissented in part, contending that the district court correctly granted judgment for the Homeowners Association on all claims because the Homeowners Association's concern was with the size and scale of the Morrises' holiday events, not with the Morrises' religion.

Judge Collins dissented in part saying that he would have affirmed the jury's finding of liability on all the Morrises' claims.

Court Upholds Firing of Nurse with Religious Objections to Flu Vaccine

In French v. Albany Medical Center, (ND NY, June 12, 2024), a New York federal district court upheld a hospital's firing of a nurse who refused for religious reasons to receive the flu vaccine. Plaintiff based her religious exemption claim on teachings of the "Israelite" religion which she adopted in 2018. Rejecting plaintiff's claim that the hospital violated Title VII by refusing to accommodate her religious beliefs, the court said in part:

[T]he Court concludes that Plaintiff's requested accommodation was not reasonable as it was a blanket exemption request which would have allowed her to continue interacting with staff and vulnerable patients while unvaccinated. This exemption would have caused an undue hardship on Defendant.

The court also rejected plaintiff's claims of disparate treatment and retaliation, saying in part:

Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that her religion was a motivating factor in Defendant's decision to suspend and terminate her.

Rabbi Sues Homeowners' Association for Blocking Synagogue Construction

Suit was filed last week in a Florida federal district court by a Chabad rabbi and related plaintiffs charging a Homeowners' Association with religious discrimination in violation of state and federal Fair Housing Acts and civil rights protections. The complaint (full text) in Hertzel v. Loggers' Run, Inc., (SD FL, filed 5/17/2024), alleges in part:

This action arises out of a campaign by the HOA... to discriminate against the Hertzels and, more broadly, to slow the growth of Jews within the Loggers’ Run planned residential community..... 

The campaign began when the Hertzels began exploring the possibility of constructing a synagogue within Loggers’ Run, which they proposed locating near multiple similarly situated churches attended by HOA board members and residents. This synagogue is essential to the growth of the Orthodox Jewish community within Loggers’ Run because central tenets of that faith prohibit driving to religious services on the Sabbath and Jewish holidays. Members of the HOA Board intervened to prevent the HOA from even considering the Hertzels’ proposal.... Although the HOA would eventually muster pretextual reasons for the rejection, individual members of the HOA and its agents were shockingly honest, explaining that the HOA “didn’t want Jews” in Loggers’ Run and, more recently, that a synagogue would be constructed over then-HOA Board President Harp’s “dead body.”

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Religious Discrimination Claim for Denial of Personal Leave Moves Ahead

In Balchan v. New Rochelle City School District, (SD NY, May 7, 2024), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss claims of religious discrimination, retaliation for submitting claims of religious discrimination, and a due process claim for stigmatization plus loss of employment. Plaintiff is a Jewish woman who was employed as the school district's Medial Director. At issue are disciplinary charges brought against her for allegedly using personal leave days for a vacation and the stigmatizing report by a hearing officer in connection with those charges. The court details the factual background in part as follows:

Plaintiff observes Jewish holidays including, but not limited to, Yamim Nora’im (a/k/a the “Days of Awe”), Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur..... Plaintiff alleges that her personal scheme of things religious evolved over the course of her life, and that marriage to her Trinidadian husband resulted in her “meld[ing] many of her Jewish religious beliefs into her new Trinidadian identity.” ...

... Specifically, Plaintiff’s “personal scheme of things religious required that she take personal leave during [the Days of Awe] to adjust, meditate, repair her connection to [God], and re-focus . . . .” Accordingly, she planned a trip with her family to Trinidad and Tobago which she alleges was “religious in nature given its relation to the Jewish high holy days” and what had been going on in her personal and professional life....

8th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments on Employee's Religious Discrimination Claim Over Objection To LGBTQ+ Display Online

The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday heard oral arguments in Snyder v. Arconic Corp. (Audio of full oral arguments.) In the case, an Iowa federal district court in Snyder v. Arconic Corp., (SD IA, Aug. 31, 2023), dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination claim brought by an employee who was fired for placing a post on the company's intranet objecting to a rainbow-colored heart on the company's intranet publicizing a support group for LGBTQ+ employees. The employee's post read:  "Its a (sic.) abomination to God. Rainbow is not meant to be displayed as a sign for sexual gender." He contended that the post was religiously motivated. The district court held that the employee had not shown a conflict between his religious practices and the company's diversity policy. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the oral arguments.

Tennessee Passes Law Banning Religious and Ideological Discrimination by Banks and Insurance Companies

The Tennessee legislature this week gave final approval to HB 2100 (full text) which prohibits banks and insurance companies from denying or cancelling services based on a customer's religious beliefs, practices or affiliations or the customer's political opinions, speech or affiliations. The bill also bans financial institutions and insurance companies from discriminating against customers based on a number of other factors such as firearm ownership, failure to meet environmental standards, or support of the government in combatting illegal immigration, drug trafficking or human trafficking. However, the bill permits financial institutions or insurance companies that claim a religious purpose to provide or deny service based on a customer's religious beliefs, exercise, or affiliation. The bill now goes to Governor Bill Lee for his signature. ADF issued a press release on the passage of the legislation.

New Idaho Law Bars Adverse Action Because of Religious Conduct in Adoption, Foster Care, Licensing and State Contracting

On Monday, Idaho Governor Brad Little signed House Bill 578 (full text) which prohibits state and local governments from treating adversely any adoption or foster care agency that declines to provide services because of a sincerely held religious belief. The new law also provides:

The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person who the state grants custody of a foster or adoptive child wholly or partially on the basis that the person guides, instructs, or raises a child, or intends to guide, instruct, or raise a child, based on or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief. The state government may consider whether a person shares the same religious or faith tradition as a foster or adoptive child when considering placement of the child in order to prioritize placement with a person of the same religious or faith tradition.

The new law goes on to provide that the state cannot deny licensing or the award of a contract to a person because the person believes, maintains policies and procedures, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief. ADF issued a press release announcing the governor's signing of the bill.

Federal Agencies Finalize Rule Amendments on Grants to Faith-Based Organizations

On March 4, nine federal agencies published a 52-page joint release titled Partnerships With Faith-Based and Neighborhood Organizations (full text) in the Federal Register amending rules adopted by them during the Trump Administration. In a press release, Americans United summarizes the rule changes in part as follows:

The new regulations:

• Reinstate the requirement that people seeking services be informed of their religious freedom rights, which include that:

• They can’t be discriminated against because of their religion or because they are nonreligious.

• They can’t be required to pray or participate in religious activities.

• They can file a complaint if their rights are violated.

• Reinstate safeguards that ensure that people who obtain social services through vouchers are not forced to attend or participate in religious activities.

• Eliminate Trump-era provisions that were designed to allow social service providers to refuse to provide key services....

Christian Organization Challenges Grant Rule Barring Religious Favoritism in Hiring

Suit was filed this week in an Oregon federal district court challenging an anti-discrimination rule of the Oregon Department of Education that disqualified a Christian youth-mentoring ministry from receiving $410,000 in grants for which it had initially been selected. The Christian group requires all of its board members, its 30 employees and 100+ volunteers to adhere to the organization's Statement of Faith. The Grant Program's rule bars grantees from favoring co-religionists as employees or volunteers. The complaint (full text) in Yourh 71Five Ministries v. Williams, (D OR, filed 3/4/2024), contends that the rule violates its Free Exercise and Free Expression rights, saying in part:

Because it emphasizes one-to-one mentoring and creating authentic, trusting relationships, 71Five Ministries depends on its staff and volunteers to fulfill the ministry’s distinctly Christian mission and purpose....

Defendants cannot disqualify otherwise eligible religious organizations from participation in otherwise available government benefit programs, including the Youth Community Investment Grant Program, “solely because of their religious character,”

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

National Guard General Seeks $1.6M Damages for Antisemitic Harassment and Termination

A suit charging antisemitic discrimination was filed last week in a California state trial court by a retired Brigadier General in the Air National Guard against his former supervisor as well as against the state of California, the California Military Department and California Governor Gavin Newsom seeking $1.6 million in damages and injunctive relief. The complaint (full text) in Magram v. Beevers, (CA Super. Ct., filed 1/24/2024), alleges in part:

This case is an action for Religious Discrimination, Harassment, and Wrongful Termination in violation of California Government Code § 12940, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) arising out of Magram’s 37-plus years of employment with the California Air Guard and United States Air Force, which includes 14-plus years as a full time officer on State Active Duty with the CMD. Beevers discriminated against Magram by harassing and wrongfully terminating Magram because of Magram’s Jewish faith, Jewish heritage, and Magram’s complaints about Beevers’ anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment. Beevers’ discrimination against Magram violated FEHA and California public policy. The State of California, CMD, and Governor Newsom were aware of Beevers’ anti-Semitism, Beevers’ anti-Semitic campaign, and Beevers’ retaliation against Magram. The State California, CMD and Governor Newsom facilitated and ratified Beevers’ anti-Semitism and Beevers’ anti-Semitic campaign against Magram.

Stars and Stripes reports on the lawsuit.

Presumption of Discrimination in Virginia Fair housing Law Held Unconstitutional

 In Carter v. Virginia Real Estate Board, (VA Cir. Ct., Jan. 24, 2024), a Virginia state trial court held unconstitutional a portion of Virginia's Fair Housing Law (§36-96.3) that provides:

The use of words or symbols associated with a particular religion, national origin, sex, or race shall be prima facie evidence of an illegal preference under this chapter that shall not be overcome by a general disclaimer. However, reference alone to places of worship, including churches, synagogues, temples, or mosques, in any such notice, statement, or advertisement shall not be prima facie evidence of an illegal preference....

In the case, a realtor's e-mails contained a signature line reading "For Faith and Freedom, Jesus Loves You, and with God all things are Possible." Her e-mails also contained a personal statement reading "For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16". The Virginia Real Estate Board began an investigation of the realtor based on these religious statements. The court invalidated this portion of the Fair Housing Law, saying in part:

[This section of the] Virginia Fair Housing Law ... infringes the natural right of individuals to express their identity and, as such, stands in sharp contrast to the freedom of Virginians and Americans to express their identity that lie at the heart of the First Amendment ... and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. Moreover, the statute restricts individual expression with a sweeping generalization so broad that any expression of individual identity related to religion, national origin, sex, or race is deemed tantamount to a desire to engage in unlawful discrimination.... Virginia's presumption of animus in the Fair Housing Law inequitably and overbroadly inhibits those rights, and as such, it fails to give the breathing space that First Amendment freedoms require....

ACLJ issued a press release announcing the decision.

School Did Not Violate Title VII in Denying Religious Exemption to Covid Rules

In Russo v. Patchogue-Medford School District, (ED NY, Jan. 12, 2024), a New York federal district court held that a school district did not violate title VII's ban on religious discrimination in employment when it refused to accommodate a school psychologist's religious objection to a state mandate to either test weekly for Covid or show proof of vaccination.  Plaintiff considered both of these alternatives to be medical interventions that would violate her faith in God's ability to protect her and keep her healthy.  She instead sought as an accommodation either periodically completing a health questionnaire or working remotely. Rejecting those alternatives, the school placed her on unpaid leave. The court said in part:

The state’s test-or-vaccination requirement was a neutral law of general applicability that only incidentally affected employees with religious objections and did not “target[] religious conduct for distinctive treatment.” ... The requirement is, therefore, constitutionally permissible if it survives rational basis review.... The state’s requirement clearly satisfies this standard....

Plaintiff’s claim that she was unlawfully denied a religious accommodation also fails....

A proposed accommodation becomes an undue hardship for an employer if it would cause the employer to violate the law....

Defendant’s rejection of Plaintiff’s proposed accommodation of working remotely also did not violate Title VII.... [H]er proposal that she be permitted to work remotely going forward included a request that Defendant cut back on her job responsibilities to accommodate remote work.... Plaintiff, therefore, implicitly conceded that her proposed accommodation would “involve the elimination of an essential function of [her] job,” thereby rendering the proposal unreasonable....

The court also concluded that plaintiff's employer did not violate the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act.

EEOC Announces Settlements In 2 Religious Discrimination Lawsuits

In the last several days, the EEOC has announced settlements in two unrelated Title VII religious discrimination suits filed by the agency.  Last week the EEOC announced that Children's Healthcare of Atlanta will pay $45,000 in damages to a former maintenance employee who was denied a religious exemption from the healthcare system's flu vaccine requirement. The employee, who worked primarily outside and had limited contact with the public or other staff, had been granted an exemption in 2017 and 2018, but was denied one and fired in 2019. Under the consent decree settling the suit, Children's Healthcare will also modify its religious exemption policy to presume eligibility for employees who work away from patients and other staff.

Yesterday the EEOC announced that Triple Canopy, Inc., a company that provides protective services to federal agencies, will pay $110,759 in damages to an employee who was denied a religious accommodation of his Christian belief that men must wear beards. The company denied the accommodation because the employee was unable to provide additional substantiation of his beliefs or a supporting statement from a documented religious leader. The company will also institute a new religious accommodation policy.

Suit Challenges D.C. Bus Advertising Restrictions

Suit was filed yesterday in a D.C. federal district court against the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority challenging its guidelines on permissible bus advertising. Plaintiff is an organization seeking to educate about the religious faith of the founders of America and the role of their religion in the drafting of the Constitution. Its ads violate two WMTA guidelines: one which prohibits advertising "intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions" and the other which bars ads "that promote or oppose any religion, religious practice or belief." The complaint (full text) in WallBuilder Presentations v. Clarke, (D DC, filed 12/12/2023) alleges in part:

8. First, Guideline 9’s “issue” advertising ban, applied by WMATA to prohibit the advertisements, violates the First Amendment in a number of ways. It is unconstitutionally vague, announces an unworkable standard that grants unfettered discretion to the decisionmakers, and, consequently, unlawfully discriminates against WallBuilders’ religious viewpoint. While it rejected WallBuilders’ advertisements, WMATA permits a wide array of advertising relating to issues involving “varying opinions” on its public buses and other advertising venues subject to its Advertising Guidelines. WMATA also permits advertisements for other mission-oriented organizations, even advertisements that relate to the faith-based missions of other organizations. 

9. Second, Guideline 12’s ban on religious advertising also infringes WallBuilders’ right to speak on otherwise permissible topics because of the religious viewpoint WallBuilders seeks to express in its advertisements. By refusing to accept advertisements that “promote or oppose any religion, religious practice or belief,” Guideline 12 necessarily results in discrimination against religious viewpoints on a range of otherwise permissible topics.

Daily Caller reports on the lawsuit which was brought on behalf of plaintiffs by the ACLU and First Liberty Institute, as well as the law firm Steptoe, LLP.

EU Court OK's Neutral Ban on Employees Wearing Any Symbol of Belief

In Request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the tribunal du travail de Liège (Labour Court, Liège, Belgium), (EUCJ, Nov. 28, 2023), the European Union Court of Justice, interpreting Council Directive 2000/78 (Equal Treatment in Employment) held:

an internal rule of a municipal authority prohibiting, in a general and indiscriminate manner, the members of that authority’s staff from visibly wearing in the workplace any sign revealing, in particular, philosophical or religious beliefs may be justified by the desire of the said authority to establish, having regard to the context in which it operates, an entirely neutral administrative environment provided that that rule is appropriate, necessary and proportionate in the light of that context and taking into account the various rights and interests at stake....

The Court also issued a press release summarizing the decision.

Consent Decree Entered In RLUIPA Suit Charging Discrimination Against Orthodox Jews

Last week, a New York federal district court entered a consent decree (full text) in United States v. Village of Airmont, (SD NY, Oct. 19, 2023). The decree settles a RLUIPA suit brought by the Justice Department charging the Village with religious discrimination. The consent decree supersedes a preliminary injunction issued by consent in 2021. (See prior posting.) According to the Justice Department's press release describing last week's consent decree:

The lawsuit alleged that Airmont had revised its zoning code in 2018 to discriminate against Orthodox Jewish residents and make it more difficult for them to worship in their own homes. The consent decree increases the amount of space in private homes that can be used for worship, removes restrictions that limited who residents are allowed to invite into their own homes to pray and eliminates the use of an arbitrary, drawn-out application process designed to delay and effectively deny permits for even minor alterations to private houses. Since 1991, this is the third lawsuit brought by the United States against Airmont for discriminating against the Orthodox Jewish community.

Suit Challenges Federal Terrorist Watchlist

Suit was filed yesterday in a Massachusetts federal district court challenging the federal government's terrorist watchlist system.  In a 185-page complaint, 12 Muslim plaintiffs sued 29 federal officials claiming violations of the 4th and 5th Amendments, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.  The complaint (full text) in Khairullah v. Garland, (D MA, filed 9/18/2023), alleges in part:

3. Plaintiffs were placed on the federal terrorist watchlist by Defendants’ interagency watchlisting system, which evaluates individuals for inclusion under a vague, rubberstamp-at-best standard that is satisfied nearly 100% of the time. Plaintiffs were not notified of their nomination to or inclusion in the watchlist. They have no idea why the government considers them worthy of permanent suspicion, have no opportunity to dispute the government’s decision or confront the supposedly derogatory information on which their placement is based....

5. The stigma and harm of watchlisting placement lasts a lifetime, even if Defendants eventually ... remove an individual from the watchlist. Several agencies retain records of past watchlist status and continue to use that historic status to deny formerly-listed individuals ...  security clearances, employment, access to government buildings, and other licenses and permissions....

9. ... Over 98% of the names on leaked portions of the watchlist from 2019 are identifiably Muslim.... Defendants consider origin from Muslim-majority countries, travel to Muslim-majority countries, attending mosques and Islamic events, zakat donations to Muslim charities, the wearing of typical Muslim dress, Muslim-sounding names, the frequency of Muslim prayer, adherence to Islamic religious practices, Islamic religious study, the transfer of money to individuals residing in Muslim-majority countries, affiliations with Muslim organizations, and associations with Muslims in the United States or abroad to be suspicious, and routinely nominate Muslims to the watchlist on the basis of those characteristics and activities....

12. Defendants create, maintain, administer, and use the watchlisting system without congressional approval and oversight, targeting Plaintiffs and thousands of other American Muslims in the shadowy corners of federal agency power.

CAIR announced its filing of the lawsuit as well as the release of its 2023 Muslim Community Travel Discrimination Survey.   VOA also reports on the lawsuit.

Prof's Suit Over Display of Prophet Muhammad Paintings Will Move Ahead In Federal Court On Religious Discrimination Claim

In López Prater v. Trustees of Hamline University of Minnesota, (D MN, Sept. 15, 2023), a Minnesota federal district court upheld defendant's removal to federal court of a suit initially filed against it in state court by an Adjunct Art Instructor at Hamline University whose teaching contract was not renewed after she showed slides of two classic paintings of the Prophet Muhammad in her World Art class. (See prior posting.) The court held that because many of plaintiff's allegations involve matters covered by the collective bargaining agreement, her state law claims are pre-empted by §301(a) of the federal Labor-Management Relations Act that creates a federal cause of action for "[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce."

The court went on to dismiss several of plaintiff's claims, but refused to dismiss her claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act for religious discrimination, saying in part:

Contrary to Hamline’s position, the Court finds that Ms. López Prater plausibly alleges that Hamline discriminated against her because she was not a Muslim or did not conform to a belief that certain Muslims share....

Ms. López Prater maintains that Hamline would not have labeled the act of showing the images “Islamophobic” if she were Muslim....

... [C]aselaw recognizes that an employer can discriminate against an employee if it acts on the preference of third parties such as customers or clients....  Therefore, Ms. López Prater alleging that Hamline discriminated against her by acting on the preferences of certain Muslim students and staff members is sufficient at this stage.

The court however dismissed plaintiff's reprisal claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, as well as her claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and her claims under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act. Volokh Conspiracy also reports on the decision.

Court Refuses Stay Pending Appeal of Order That Attorneys Get Religious-Liberty Training

As previously reported, last month a Texas federal district court ordered sanctions against Southwest Airlines for its failing to comply with an earlier Order in the case that found the Airline had violated Title VII when it fired a flight attendant because of her social media messages about her religiously-motivated views on abortion. Southwest then filed a motion to stay the sanctions while the case is appealed. In Carter v. Transport Workers Union of America, Local 556, (ND TX, Aug. 31, 2023), the court denied the motion to stay the sanctions. Among other things, Southwest objected to the court's requirement that three of the Airline's attorneys who were responsible for non-compliance with the earlier Order attend at least 8 hours of religious liberty training conducted by the Christian legal non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom. The court said in part:

... Southwest complains that “[r]equiring religious-liberty training from an ideological organization with a particular viewpoint on what the law requires” is “unprecedented.” That appears to be more of a gripe than a legal objection, because Southwest doesn’t make any legal argument for why training with an “ideological organization” is unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to law.

In any event, the Court selected ADF for the following reason: Southwest does not appear to understand how federal law operates to protect its employees’ religious liberties. ADF has won multiple Supreme Court cases in recent years on the topic of religious liberties, evidencing an understanding of religious liberties.  And because ADF has agreed to conduct topical trainings in the past, ADF appears well-suited to train Southwest’s lawyers on a topic with which the lawyers evidently struggle.

In a footnote, the court added:

This doesn’t appear to be a First Amendment argument, as Southwest doesn’t cite the First Amendment or any First Amendment caselaw, so it appears that Southwest forfeited any First Amendment arguments concerning ADF’s viewpoint.

LawDork reports on the decision.

New Jersey Settles With Township Accused of Discriminating Against Orthodox Jewish Residents

 A Consent Order (full text) was entered yesterday by a New Jersey trial court in Platkin v. Jackson Township, (NJ Super., Aug. 28, 2023).  In the suit, the state alleged that the Township had violated the Law Against Discrimination by taking zoning and enforcement actions against the growing Orthodox Jewish population in the Township. (See prior posting.) Under the Order, the Township must pay $275,000 in penalties and place another $150,000 in a Restitution Fund. It must end its discriminatory use of land use and zoning regulations and create a Multicultural Committee. It must create procedures for erecting Sukkahs and eruvim, and must comply with a previously issued order in federal enforcement case to zone to allow religious schools, including schools with dormitories, in various parts of the Township. The New Jersey Attorney General issued a press release with further information on the settlement agreement.