The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, expressed its disappointment with a ruling issued today by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit against Orthodox Jewish apartment owners in Chicago whose condominium association had temporarily banned them from affixing a mezuzah to their apartment doorpost. The appeals court, in the case of Bloch v. Shoreline Towers Condo. Assn., ruled that the federal Fair Housing Act does not require a condominium association or landlord to accommodate an Orthodox Jewish tenant’s need to affix a mezuzah to his/her doorpost, as required by Jewish law.
The case arose when Shoreline Towers adopted a rule banning materials of various kinds outside of tenants’ doors and the Bloch’s mezuzah was removed during repainting and not allowed to be re-affixed. After the Bloch’s filed suit against Shoreline in response, Shoreline adopted a religious exception to the hallway rules, and both the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois adopted laws guaranteeing the right of a tenant to affix religious symbols to their doors. Nonetheless, the lawsuit proceeded as the Bloch’s sought monetary damages from Shoreline due to the incident.
In upholding the rejection of the Bloch’s claim, the Court of Appeals held that the hallway rule was a general rule not targeted against a particular religious practice and therefore not an act of discrimination against the Blochs. One member of the appeals panel dissented from the ruling, and reasoned that, given an observant Jew’s obligation to affix a mezuzah to her doorpost, the hallway rule was a “constructive eviction” under the Fair Housing Act.
Nathan J. Diament, public policy director for the UOJCA, issued the following statement commenting upon the court ruling:
The Orthodox Union is disappointed with this ruling by the Court of Appeals. We believe that irrespective of the facial neutrality of the condo association’s rule, that to ban a Jewish tenant from affixing a mezuzah ought to be viewed as a constructive eviction from their home and thus illegal under the Fair Housing Act. We are grateful that this is not a practical issue at the moment in the Shoreline Condominiums, nor in Illinois or in several other states which have passed similar laws protecting religious liberty in their dwellings. We will, however, consider appealing to Congress to make clear that such rules are outlawed by the Fair Housing Act.
(YWN Desk – NYC)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
12 Responses
illini07, not being allowed to affix a mezuzah IS tantamount to eviction; period. I would think the doorpost is no less part of the tenant’s paid domain than their mailbox, which too, is not within the front door.
So, can the condo association paint what it wants outside the front doors? Can the association hang Xmas decorations from the top of a Jewish renter’s doorpost since they have no rights regarding the sides of the doorposts? Where are the ‘good folks’ from the ACLU for this one? This case is not as absurd as what they mostly take on and there is tremendous precedence for a reversal.
This is harassment and a bad sign.
Town Crier, that is very interesting. This is the reason why those who pigeon hole people as either conservative or liberal, right on down the line on all issues, are out of it and do not exercise critical thinking when eating what the media feeds them; albeit liberal based media or conservative talk-show hosts. The falling into ranks of conservative or liberal is exactly that, falling.
>After the Bloch’s filed suit against Shoreline in response, Shoreline adopted a religious exception to the hallway rules, and both the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois adopted laws guaranteeing the right of a tenant to affix religious symbols to their doors. Nonetheless, the lawsuit proceeded as the Bloch’s sought monetary damages from Shoreline due to the incident.
What a chillul hashem. Bloch should have just dropped the lawsuit after the condo association capitulated and city/state laws were passed.
TCC- Gimme a break. If the case involved Christmas wreaths the the decision would be the same. This has nothing to do with being pro or anti Mezzuzah.
The bottom line is that the rule was facially neutral and therefore didn’t violate the Fair Housing Act.
illini07. That is absurd. Whose domain the doorpost is certainly is applicable and this law seems to conflict with First Amendment rights. The issue is the law should be reasonable, and this ruling is not, again, based on precedence, if not out and out argument. While I agree with you that it is their duty to uphold the law, if this is the law, the law is a he-donkey….remember that one?
Did anyone read this article? please explain this!!!!!!!
“After the Bloch’s filed suit against Shoreline in response, Shoreline adopted a religious exception to the hallway rules, and both the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois adopted laws guaranteeing the right of a tenant to affix religious symbols to their doors. Nonetheless, the lawsuit proceeded as the Bloch’s sought monetary damages from Shoreline due to the incident.”
The Associattion changed the laws, and they had the Mezuza……..but the BLOCH’S wanted MONETARY damages, HUH? am I reading this CORRECTLY?
……..and then we scream ANTI SEMITES? what in the world have we become? MONEY SUCKERS? Monetary damages from next door neighbors for what?
They did no deserve a better judgement! If they would’ve given the MONETARY damages as a KAPURES NEFESH to Reb Mayer Bal Hanes perhaps they would’ve won the case!
illini07 is right on target. The judges are ruling on a matter of secular law, and applied the law, probably correctly.
The OU was being very diplomatic. Somehow I think that if the mezuzah was described as a symbol of Islam, there would have been a heter found.
The decision was correct, this is not constructive eviction. If the halacha did not allow a mezuzah to be put up inside, and if the halacha required one to move out if one couldn’t put up a mezuzah, then they’d be right. But neither of these things are true. The fact is that if one can’t put the mezuzah outside one puts it inside. And the fact is that if for any reason one can’t put up a mezuzah at all, one can still live in the apartment; the chiyuv of mezuzah doesn’t prevent one from living in a house that hasn’t got one. So there was no eviction, constructive or otherwise. Therefore no violation of the Fair Housing Act. Now there’s a state and city regulation in place, so this can’t happen again in Chicago or anywhere in Illinois.
What I wonder is what happened to the mezuzah the condo board stole, and why they weren’t charged with the theft. Mezuzos ain’t cheap.
READ CAREFULLY: “After the Bloch’s filed suit against Shoreline in response, Shoreline adopted a religious exception to the hallway rules, and both the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois adopted laws guaranteeing the right of a tenant to affix religious symbols to their doors. Nonetheless, the lawsuit proceeded as the Bloch’s sought monetary damages from Shoreline due to the incident.”
The Blochs filed ONCE, before the rule change, and that claim included monetary damages. They did not file a new claim after the rule was changed, it was a continuation of the original claim as the condo’s rule change did not address the financial claim in any way.
#13, all I read in your post is a lot of double-talk and nonsense. Since you take a definitive stand on the parameters of the First Amendment, I suggest you inform the Supreme Court on how to come to a unified interpretation of the First Amendment and how it does and does not apply to “private parties, such as landlords, and only applies to government,” whatever that means.
Your circular statement that the only rights tenants have are those given them by lawmaking bodies, sounds like mumbo jumbo. You imply by your statement, incorrectly, that it means they have NO rights, and this could not be further from the truth.
And what do you mean by IF they outer post is included in a lease, it does not mean they can do what they want with it? Of course they cannot set fire or leave chipped lead paint on the posts. But IF they do own the outer post, why do you then follow that they cannot put a mezuzah on it?
Keep in mind that real lawyers know they can take the same facts and string together a tight, cohesively constructed argument convincing people of totally different outcomes. Are you saying every legal conclusion is correct by qualified and capable alleged professionals?
Precedent? There are many..too many to mention. But it would not matter because based on your views, you would feel as you do and also be all for handing out littering tickets for tenants with door mats outside their front doors.
Again, the law must be reasonable and judges
Don’t know why my last sentence in post #17 did not post completely. I was going to say “and judges should be fit and capable”, unless you think they are fit and capable in all their rulings.