7th Circuit rules en banc on mezuzah case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The full 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that condominium owners prevented from hanging religious objects on their home can in some cases sue their association under the Fair Housing Act for alleged religious and racial discrimination, after they've bought the residence and moved in.

Considering an Illinois-based case en banc, eight federal judges participated in the decision issued today in Lynne Bloch, et al. v. Edward Frischholz and Shoreline Towers Condominium Association, No. 06-3376.

The case may ultimately go to the Supreme Court of the United States for consideration and could have widespread impact on condo and homeowner associations nationally as far as what rules can dictate to owners.

At issue in the case is a mezuzah, a small scroll held in a case that's part of Jewish religion tradition and must be hung over doorways. The Shoreline Towers Condominium Association repeatedly removed that mezuzah from the front door of Chicago condo owner Lynne Bloch, saying it violated a covenant banning any "mats, boots, shoes, carts, or objects of any sort" from being placed outside the unit entrance doors. Bloch, who'd displayed the mezuzah on condo doorposts for about three decades without objection, finally sued on the grounds she was a victim of religious discrimination.

U.S. District Judge George W. Lindberg threw out the case in August 2006 by granting summary judgment, and a 7th Circuit panel affirmed his decision in July 2008. In that initial appellate ruling, Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook and Senior Judge William Bauer found the rule to be "neutral" and non-discriminatory and one that "potentially affects every owner" without regard to religion.

"It bans photos of family vacations, political placards, for-sale notices and Chicago Bears pennants," the chief judge wrote.

However, Judge Diane P. Wood dissented, saying the rule could be seen as a violation of the federal housing law because observant Jews would be unable to live in a condo with no mezuzah.

Relying on precedent reached in Halprin v. Prairie Single Family Homes of Dearborn Park Ass'n, 388 F.3d 327 (7th Cir. 2004), the appellate panel precluded any of those specific FHA claims because the federal statute applied only to discrimination at the time of sale, not post-acquisition. The two-judge majority found the Shoreline Towers rules were neutrally adopted and enforced.

"Though the FHA permits accommodations for disabilities, it is silent as to religious accommodations," the court wrote. "Because we cannot create what Congress left out, the majority concluded the Blochs' discrimination claims must fail, regardless of the theory."

But in taking the important question to the full court, the en banc ruling found differently in a 35-page opinion. Indianapolis-based Judge John Tinder authored the decision, with Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Bauer, Wood, Richard Posner, Michael Kanne, Terry Evans, Diane Sykes participating; Judges Joel Flaum, Ilana Rovner, and Ann Williams didn't take part.

The court reversed the District Court on three of the federal claims and affirmed on the Section 3604 claim about the Blochs not being able to sell to others with the same religious backgrounds.

Determining that the Blochs purchased dwellings subject to the covenants, which restrict the buyer's rights in the future, the court found that the FHA Section 3604(b) prohibits the association from discriminating against the Blochs through its enforcement of facially-neutral rules - that issue and others can proceed to trial to determine if sufficient evidence exists.

"Discriminatory intent is the pivotal element in this case," Judge Tinder wrote, noting the Blochs met the first two elements in that they're Jewish and lived in the condo units and the defendants engaged in a pattern of conduct of repeatedly taking down the mezuzah. "This conduct would constitute 'interference' if it was invidiously motivated - that is, if it was intentionally discriminatory."

Judge Tinder wrote also that the record contains sufficient evidence that genuine issues exist for trial on intentional discrimination. He cited instances of anti-Semitic motives and behavior in enforcing the rules through the years.

"It is the combination of all these facts and inferences, rather than any single one, that pushes this case beyond summary judgment," he wrote. "A trier of fact could conclude that the Association's reinterpretation of the Hallway Rule and clearing of all objects from doorposts was intended to target the only group of residents for which the prohibited practice was religiously required."

The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings on those issues, as well as other state claims that had been dismissed at the District level.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.