Chicago mezuza case has wider implications

A legal battle over a mezuzah on the door post of a condominium in Chicago has had repercussions in Florida and Connecticut and brought an award to an attorney for his pro bono service in the case.

Helen Bloch and her mother jointly own an apartment in the Chicago building in question. The board had a ‘long-standing rule” preventing clutter in the hallways, but there had always been wreaths on doors, and mezuzahs on the door posts. “I grew up in the building and lived there my whole life,” said Bloch. She said when the hallways were painted “nothing could go back up,” they would not “allow anything on the door.”

“It started before my dad passed away,” said Bloch. “They retaliated against us because we challenged the building’s determination that we couldn’t have a mezuzah. It was a very stressful five or six years,” she said, adding that it wasn’t just the mezuzah. She noted that her mother was fined for having a guest and shul meetings in her apartment. At one point the lawsuit was going to be dismissed for not proving discrimination under the Fair Housing Act but one judge filed to take a “new look” when finding that, at Bloch’s shiva for her father, the condo left a coat rack and washing water in the hall but removed their mezuzah. Bloch stated that the family is “still suffering” because they can’t sell the apartment since the assessments went up to pay for the lawsuits.

“This whole period regarding the mezuzah situation, which started approximately one year before my father died, was difficult,” emphasized Bloch.  “There were many Jews who lived in the building, including my grandparents before they died.  The building used to have a Chanukah candle lighting ceremony every year in the lobby--it was a very Jewish building.  To go from that to no mezuzahs was pretty devastating, especially considering that I was a lawyer--my family turned to me for answers and I had to work on the case as well.”

Steven P. Blonder, a principal in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group at Much Shelist in Chicago received the 2012 Award for Excellence in Pro Bono service from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in conjunction with the Chicago Chapter of the Federal Bar Association on May 18th.

Blonder said that he got involved in the case “by accident,” when he met one of the plaintiffs at court. “They were represented by a legal clinic and they thought they needed extra help.” Blonder is chairman of the pro bono committee at Much Shelist.

Shoreline Towers Condominium Association in Chicago cited a rule prohibiting clutter such as mats, boots, shoes or signs in the hallways of the building. “It’s certainly not intended to apply to a mezuzah and if it did, it violated federal fair housing laws and would be unconstitutional,” explained Blonder. The case was resolved on the eve of the jury trial. “The condo association wanted vindication for itself that they had not done anything wrong,” he continued. “A settlement was reached that includes a consent judgment that specifically protects the mezuzah. We believe that it always protected the mezuzah and now it is explicit; the law applies in Chicago and Illinois. In Chicago there is (now) an ordinance that it is illegal to prohibit to put a religious symbol on the door or door post or entrance.”

The legislation passed in 2005, and in 2006 the Illinois Condominium Property Act was amended. In 2008 an amendment of the Florida condominium act modeled on the Illinois State legislation was enacted. Blonder’s case was resolved in 2011.

Mezuzah prohibitions would be blocked by existing legislation here in New York, said Benjamin Weinstock, Deputy Mayor of Cedarhurst and a real estate lawyer at Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C. “Condo boards have broad leeway to regulate the building,” said Weinstock. “You can’t stop a condo from doing something if it’s a good business decision (such as) having uniform halls, doors, and lighting to preserve the value of the homeowner. But religion is protected and the ability to use your property for religious purposes.”

He cited two laws applicable in New York: a federal statute, RLUIPA (the religious land use and institutional persons act) and New York State general obligation law 5-331 that voids restrictive covenants. The first, passed in 2000, prohibits local government from taking action antagonistic to land use by religious organizations. An example, Weinstock said, would be a town refusing to give a variance to a shul that wants to build.

“It prohibits making a law against religious practice.” Weinstock explained. “If I have the right to exercise religion but can’t use my house for bible study the government is using zoning power to restrict the free exercise of religion.  The affect of the law is since the power to regulate use of property can have a chilling effect on the practice of religion, the government has to be very circumspect in using land use powers. If the government passed a law ‘no mezuzahs’ it would be knocked down in a second.”  He cited the eruv fight in the Hamptons as a RLUIPA issue.

RLUIPA only stops the government, not private people, noted Weinstock, but in the case of a “racially restrictive covenant, the courts have reasoned that enforcing them converts a private action into a government action.” Therefore, “it prohibits it as unconstitutional behavior because it discriminates based on race and religion and the constitution prohibits discrimination of race and religion.” In 1963, New York passed a law voiding racially restrictive covenants. Under New York law, any condominium law that restricts mezuzahs would thus be voided.

Said Bloch, “It’s extremely frustrating as an American, not living in Europe or during the Holocaust, not to be able to express one’s religion freely in one’s home, living in a free society, not an anti-Semitic society like my ancestors did.”