7th Circuit rules mezuzah removal may violate housing laws.

Byline: David Ziemer

The Seventh Circuit has revived a fair housing suit by condominium owners against their condo association.

When a three-judge panel considered the case last year, a majority held that the Fair Housing Act does not apply to post-acquisition conduct, over a dissent by Judge Diane Wood. (Bloch v. Frischholz, 533 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2008).)

But the court, en banc, unanimously held on Nov. 13 that, in some circumstances, it can.

At the center of the case is a mezuzah (the plural is muzuzot), a small rectangular box containing parchment inscribed with passages from Deuteronomy, which observant Jews are required to affix to the exterior doorposts of their homes.

Lynne, Helen and Nathan Bloch are Jewish residents of three units in the Shoreline Towers Condominium in Chicago. As observant Jews, they displayed mezuzot outside their doorposts for decades without objection.

But in 2001, the condo association adopted Hallway Rules, prohibiting any objects being placed outside unit doors. In 2004, the association began stricter enforcement of the law, removing all objects outside units, including mezuzot.

The association repeatedly removed the mezuzot placed by Lynne Bloch outside her door, and she repeatedly replaced them. After the death of Lynne's husband, the association even removed a mezuzah during the funeral, although it left a coat rack and table that had been placed in the hallway for the shiva (a seven day mourning period).

After returning from the funeral with her rabbi and finding the mezuzah gone, Bloch brought suit under the FHA. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the association, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, with Judge Diane P. Wood dissenting.

The majority held that while the FHA forbids discrimination, it does not impose any requirement that religion be accommodated, and concluded that making an exception to a facially neutral rule for mezuzot would be an accommodation not required by the FHA.

In May, the court reheard oral arguments en banc, and this time, the court held that the FHA permits the claims, in an opinion by Judge John D. Tinder.

However, the court first held that 42 U.S.C. 3604(a) does not permit relief, because it is limited to refusals to sell or rent.

But, the court concluded that the Blochs could assert a claim under subsection 3604(b).

Subsection 3604(b) makes it unlawful To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a...