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.

Seattle Becomes First U.S. City To Outlaw Caste Discrimination

Seattle, Washington this week became the first U.S. city to add "caste" discrimination to its anti-discrimination laws. The Ordinance (full text), enacted on Feb. 21, in Section 14.04.030 defines caste as:

a system of rigid social stratification characterized by hereditary status, endogamy, and social barriers sanctioned by custom, law, or religion.

The Ordinance begins with some two-dozen "Whereas" clauses. They assert in part that:

... caste discrimination is based on birth and descent, and occurs in the form of social segregation, physical and psychological abuse, and violence; and

... caste discrimination manifests in employment, education, and housing....

 Time has a lengthy background article on the new legislation.

Alaska Homeless Shelter Challenges City's Public Accommodation Law

Last week, an Anchorage, Alaska women's homeless shelter filed suit in an Alaska federal district court contending that the city's recently amended public accommodation law that requires it to house transgender women violates the shelter's 1st and 14th Amendment rights.  The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex or gender identity. The complaint (full text) in Downtown Soup Kitchen v. Municipality of Anchorage, (D AK, filed 6/30/2021), says in part:

Defendants insist Hope Center’s religious beliefs— specifically, its beliefs about sexuality and gender—are discriminatory and deserving of punishment. In Defendants’ view, providing charitable shelter exclusively to vulnerable women is unlawful sex and gender-identity discrimination....

Because of its religious beliefs and desire to create a safe and secure environment, Hope Center allows only biological women to stay overnight at the shelter....

No Hope Center policy prohibits biological women who identify as men from accessing the shelter....

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

New Jersey Sues Township Alleging Anti-Jewish Zoning Actions

New Jersey's Attorney General yesterday announced that the state has filed a lawsuit against Jackson Township (NJ) alleging that in response to residents who have complained about the number of Orthodox Jews moving in, the Township has adopted discriminatory zoning ordinances and enforcement practices. The complaint (full text) in Grewal v. Jackson Township, (NJ Super. Ct., filed 4/27/2021) alleges that New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination has been violated and reads in part:

Defendants have exercised their zoning authority to intentionally target Orthodox Jewish religious practices and rituals, such as communal prayer, the erection of sukkahs, and the establishment of yeshivas and eruvim. They have exercised their zoning authority to enact ordinances for the purpose of deterring Orthodox Jews from building and operating religious schools, as well as the dormitories associated with those schools within the Township. And they have exercised their authority by discriminatorily investigating alleged violations of Township ordinances by Orthodox Jews, while acknowledging that resident complaints have been “exaggerated” and that significant resources have been wasted on enforcement without the discovery of any significant ordinance violations.

Insider NJ reports on the lawsuit.

Suit Says Housing Discrimination Based On Family Size Is Religious Discrimination Against Orthodox Jews

A lawsuit was filed yesterday in a New York federal district court by a couple who claim that the city's public housing rules which effectively limit the size of families that are eligible for apartments through the affordable housing lottery operate to discriminate against Orthodox Jewish families. The complaint (full text) in Katz v. New York City Housing Preservation & Development, (SD NY, filed 4/6/2021) alleges:

Plaintiffs and their family members have a sincerely held religious belief that having a large family is both an obligation and a blessing from God....

Orthodox Jewish families are at an inherent disadvantage in applying for affordable housing lotteries, because even the average family, with 4.1 children, would exceed the maximum family size requirement of 6 individuals.

Plaintiffs allege that the policy violates city, state and federal anti-discrimination laws as well as the 1st Amendment.   AP reports on the lawsuit.

Homeless Shelters Excluded From City's Anti-Discrimination Ordinances

In Downtown Soup Kitchen v. Municipality of Anchorage, (D AK, Aug. 9, 2019), an Alaska federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of two of Anchorage's anti-discrimination ordinances against a faith-based homeless shelter for women which admits only individuals who were determined to be female at birth. Thus transgender men may be admitted, but transgender women may not.  The court concluded that homeless shelters are not covered by either the fair housing or public accommodation provisions of the city's code. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Settlement Reached In Discrimination Suit Against Michigan Chautauqua Village

Petoskey News-Review reports that a settlement has been reached in a lawsuit against the Michigan village of Bay View that was established in 1875 as part of the United Methodist Church's Chautauqua movement.  In 2017, a federal lawsuit was filed challenging provisions in the Bay View Association's rules that limited cottage ownership to practicing Christians, as well as the requirement that a majority of the Association board be Methodists.  (See prior posting.) Later the Justice Department joined the lawsuit.  In 2018, the provision limiting ownership to Christians was eliminated. (See prior posting.) However plaintiffs also objected to other provisions favoring Christians. 

In the settlement reached in May, but which must still be approved by the court, Bay View Association will retain its status as a religious organization, but will need to file for its tax exempt status separately rather than through the United Methodist Church. It will end the requirement that a majority of its board be Methodists.  The Association will also eliminate provisions in its bylaws that require members to "respect the principles of the United Methodist Church" and support Bay View's mission. Instead, the bylaws will be amended to read that members must "respect and preserve the history and values of the Association," which includes acting "in a manner consistent with Christian values." Finally, Bay View, through its insurers, will pay $75,000 in plaintiffs' legal fees.  The Justice Department will monitor compliance with the settlement for five years.

Hasidic Jews Sue Town Over Zoning Barriers

Suit was filed this week in a New York federal district court against the village of Airmont for its actions in attempting to prevent expansion of its Hasidic Jewish community.  The complaint (full text) in Congregation of Ridnik v. Village of Airmont, (SD NY, filed 12/10/2018), alleges in part:

For Hasidic Jews living in Airmont, seeking the Village’s approval for religious gatherings places applicants in a process reminiscent of the curse of Tantalus. At great expense, applicants prepare elaborate plans in order to obtain approval, which the Village uniformly declines to provide. Instead, the Village dangles promises that the applications will be approved in the future if certain modifications are made, only to then yank any hope of approval away even after the applicants make the requested modifications. Instead of providing an approval or denial, the Village requires applicants to satisfy new conditions, often citing purported problems with the applicants’ plans on which Airmont officials had already signed-off.

Suits Proliferating Against Airbnb Over West Bank Delistings

Lawsuits are proliferating against Airbnb for its decision last week to delist rentals in Israeli settlements in the West Bank.  In addition to the arbitration proceeding previously reported, a suit under the federal Fair Housing Act was filed in Delaware federal district court. Delaware is Airbnb's state of incorporation. (Reuters). According to JTA, the 18 plaintiffs in the lawsuit either own property in Israel or have rented property there in the past through Airbnb. Separately a suit was filed against Airbnb in an Israeli court alleging discrimination in violation of Israeli law, and a separate suit in Israeli courts against Human Rights Watch for its involvement in Airbnb's action is in the offing. (JTA).

Claim Filed Against Airbnb For Its Delisting of West Bank Rentals

As reported by the New York Times, last week Airbnb under pressure from Palestinian officials, anti-settlement advocates and human rights groups announced that it is removing listings for rentals in Israeli settlements in the West Bank.  In response, yesterday an arbitration claim (pursuant to the arbitration clause in Airbnb's terms of service) was filed against Airbnb by an Israeli company owned by a resident of New York.  The Statement of Claim (full text) in Bibliotechnical Blue & White Ltd. v. AIRBNB, Inc., (Amer. Arbitration Assoc., filed 11/26/2018) alleges in part:

Claimant recently registered as a user of Respondent's services. This was done in the City of New York. Claimant would like to purchase or purchase or lease property in Judea & Samaria and list it with Respondent's services using computer services in the City of New York. Thus, Respondent's policy is discriminatorily preventing Claimant from using Respondent's services in the City of New York....

Respondent has violated the New York City and New York State human rights laws by discriminating on the basis of religion, national origin and/or citizenship and also by engaging in a discriminatory boycott.

Legal Insurrection blog reports in more detail on the case.

Second Broad Challenge To Austin's Anti- Discrimination Ordinances Filed

Following a federal court lawsuit filed last week by churches challenging Austin, Texas' ban on employment discrimination (see prior posting), a broader lawsuit has been filed in state court challenging the application of Austin's public accommodation, housing and employment discrimination ordinances to any individual or business that has religious objections to homosexual or transgender behavior.  The complaint (full text) in Texas Values v. City of Austin, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 10/8/2018) asks the court to declare that the ordinances violate Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Texas Constitution

to the extent that they: (a) prohibit individuals and entities from refusing to hire or retain practicing homosexuals or transgendered people as employees for reasons based in sincere religious belief; (b) prohibit individuals and entities from refusing to rent their property to tenants who are engaged in non-marital sex of any sort, including homosexual behavior, for reasons based in sincere religious belief; (c) prohibit individuals and entities from declining to participate in or lend support to homosexual marriage or commitment ceremonies, for reasons based in sincere religious belief; and (d) prohibit individuals and entities from declining to provide spousal employment benefits to the same-sex partners or spouses of employees, for reasons based in sincere religious belief; (e) prohibit individuals and entities from establishing sex-specific restrooms and limiting them to members of the appropriate biological sex, for reasons based in sincere religious belief.

Austin Statesman reports on the lawsuit.

Ban Against Reproductive Choice Discrimination Enjoined As To Defendants With Religious Objections

In Our Lady's Inn v. City of St. Louis, (ED MO, Sept. 30, 2018), a Missouri federal district court enjoined enforcement against plaintiffs of a St. Louis ordinance enacted last year that prohibits discrimination in housing and employment because of a person's reproductive health decisions or pregnancy.  Plaintiffs were a non-profit agency that provides housing to pregnant, low-income women who seek an alternative to abortion; a group of Catholic elementary schools; and a closely held company whose principal owner adheres to Catholic teachings on birth control.

Construing exemptive language of the ordinance narrowly, the court concluded that the ordinance would require businesses to provide health insurance for reproductive services, and that the ordinance would thus be invalid under Missouri's RFRA.  The court went on to invalidate the employment and housing discrimination provisions, finding that they violate the expressive association rights of the women's shelter and the Catholic schools.  The Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the decision.

Mahwah Settles New Jersey;'s Suit Against It Over Anti-Jewish Ordinances

A settlement agreement (full text) was reached yesterday in Grewal v. Towship of Mahwah. (D NJ).  In the case, New Jersey's attorney general charged the Town of Mahwah with religious discrimination aimed at preventing an influx of Orthodox Jews.  In particular, the suit pointed to an ordinance banning out-of-state residents from using public parks, and another aimed at preventing the construction of eruvs. (See prior posting.) The settlement acknowledges repeal of the parks ordinance and affirms the right of residents to build eruvs in the township. $350,000 in penalties and attorneys' fees were suspended so long as terms of the settlement are not violated in the next four years. Various record keeping and reporting requirements are also included in the settlement. NJ.com reports on the settlement. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Suit Charges Neighborhood With Discrimination Against Hasidic Jews

A religious discrimination lawsuit was filed two weeks ago in a New York federal district court by a number of Hasidic Jews who currently live, have lived, or wish to live in the Woodbury, New York neighborhood of Highland Lake Estates. The complaint (full text) in Stern v. Highland Lake Homeowners Association, (SD NY, filed 5/24.2018) alleges that the Homeowners Association and many of its members have taken actions to discourage more Hasidic Jews from moving into the area and making those who already live there feel unwelcome. The suit seeks $7.5 million in damages.  The Times Herald-Record reports on the lawsuit.

New Jersey Township Reverses Moves That Were Aimed At Excluding Orthodox Jews

According to JTA, as a strategic response to a lawsuit filed against it in October (see prior posting), the Mahwah, New Jersey Township Council last week voted to rescind an ordinance that banned out-of-state residents from using Township parks and passed a resolution withdrawing a proposed ordinance that would have prevented the construction of an eruv. (Dec. 14 Meeting Agenda).  Legal counsel had recommended the move in the face of charges that the Township was attempting to prevent Orthodox Jews from moving into the area.

New Jersey Sues Township Over Attempts To Exclude Orthodox Jews

Yesterday, New Jersey's Attorney general filed a religious discrimination suit against Mahwah Township.  The complaint (full text) in Porrino v. Township of Mahwah, (NJ Super. Ct., filed 10/24/2017) is summarized in a press release from the Attorney General's Office:

Likening the conduct of Mahwah township officials to 1950s-era “white flight” suburbanites who sought to keep African-Americans from moving into their neighborhoods, Attorney General Christopher S. Porrino announced today that the State has filed a Superior Court complaint against the Mahwah Township Council and the Township of Mahwah alleging that, in an effort to stave off a feared influx of Orthodox Jewish persons from outside New Jersey, it approved two unlawfully discriminatory ordinances.

One of those ordinances discriminated by banning non-New-Jersey-residents from using Mahwah’s public parks, the State alleges. The other – an ordinance amendment – discriminated by effectively banning the posting, on utility poles, of plastic strips called “lechis” that denote the boundaries of an eruv used by Sabbath-observant Orthodox Jews. The complaint also challenges actions the township has taken to have an existing eruv removed.

[Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.] 

Suit Challenges Ordinance Barring Discrimination On Basis of Reproductive Health Services

In February 2017, the St. Louis (MO) Board of Aldermen enacted Ordinance 70459 which added to the city's existing laws against discrimination in employment and housing a prohibition on discrimination "because of ... reproductive health decisions or pregnancy status (including childbirth or a related medical condition)".  Yesterday suit was filed in a Missouri federal district court challenging the Ordinance which the lawsuit says was represented as barring discrimination against those who have had, or are planning to have, an abortion.  The complaint (full text) in Our Lady's Inn v. City of St. Louis, (ED MO, filed 5/22/2017) contends that in fact the Ordinance is much broader, saying in part:

Ordinance 70459 forbids Plaintiffs and others from making adverse employment, housing or realty decisions based on an individual or entity being an abortion activist, advocate or provider....  Thus, the Ordinance forbids Plaintiffs from refusing to sell or rent real property to individuals and corporate organizations that promote or provide abortions....

The complaint alleges that the Ordinance violates the speech and religion clauses of the 1st Amendment,  the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment as well as various provisions of state law.  Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

NY Municipalities Settle Discrimination Suit Against Them Alleging Anti-Hasidic Bias

JTA reports that the upstate Village of Bloomingburg and the Town of Mamakating, New York have reached a settlement with a developer who sued claiming that the municipalities engaged in an anti-Semitic conspiracy to prevent more Hasidic Jews from moving into the area. The lawsuit filed in 2014 (see prior posting) claimed, among other things, that the municipalities violated the fair housing and civil rights laws in blocking the completion of a 396-unit townhouse project out of fear that would be occupied mostly by Hasidic families. Under the settlement, the developer's company Sullivan Farms II will be be paid by the municipalities' insurer $1.595 million on behalf of  Mamakating and $1.305 million on behalf of Bloomingburg.

Apartment Owner Sued Over Rental Discrimination Against Muslims

The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights yesterday announced the filing of a lawsuit in state court charging the owner of an apartment building with discriminatory refusal to rent to Muslims. The complaint (full text) in Porrino v. Greda, (NJ Super., filed 10/19/2016), details the Division's use of testers after receiving a complaint from a Muslim woman.

2nd Circuit Affirms Win By Rockland County Villages Charged With Anti-Hasidic Discrimination

In the long battle between Hasidic residents and others in parts of Rockland County, New York, the Second Circuit has affirmed the district court's dismissal (see prior posting) of a complaint by Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, a Hasidic religious educational institution, that local villages discriminated against Hasidic Jews in actions opposing the building of a 60-unit adult student housing development.  In Bernstein v. Village of Wesley Hills, (2d Cir., March 23, 2016), the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiffs' had not produced sufficient evidence for a jury to find disparate treatment or discriminatory animus.  Instead, it said the villages had a genuine concern about environmental impact of the development. Lower Hudson Journal News reports on the decision.