RSS Feed
Springfield, MA - Judge: Hearing Held on Jewish Holiday Not Faith-Based Bias |
|
| |
Text Size
|
Springfield, MA - An Orthodox Jewish landlord who was held in contempt due to the poor condition of his properties did not have his religious rights infringed on when the contempt hearing conflicted with a Jewish holiday, a U.S. District Court judge has ruled.
Shalom Segelman, whose Springfield properties have been the subject of various court hearings in the past, filed a 12-count complaint charging the city and a tenants’ rights group with discriminating against him based on his religion.
But Judge Michael A. Ponsor threw out the claims.
On the matter of the date of the contempt hearing, which Segelman said the city insisted on setting on a religious holiday, Ponsor said that the scheduling was handled “by the judge, not by the City … while it is true that most judges will bend over backwards to accommodate religious holidays of all kinds, no court has ever held that the failure to do this constitutes a violation of a recognized constitutional right.”
More of today's headlines
“Iowa - Spared the worst of the most destructive flooding to hit Iowa in 15 years, the state’s Jewish community joined the largest recovery effort to take shape since...”
Iowa - Kiddish Hashem, Jewish Community Mounts Large Relief Effort To Flood Victims
New York City - Con Ed Faces New Benchmark for Blackouts
Total4
Read Comments (4) — Post Yours »
1
Jun 19, 2008 at 01:22 PM Anonymous Says:
If the defendant raised the issue BEFORE the court date, it is clearly a constitutional violation, however if he failed to respond or appear for the hearings, not only the one scheduled on Shabbos or Yom Tov, the judge is right.
2
Jun 19, 2008 at 02:17 PM ShatzMatz Says:
After the Chillul Hashem that this guy pulled off in Sprinfield, he has to have chutzpah to invoke his relegion as a defense. This guy failed to follow hundreds of court orders throughout the process, to the extent that he was jailed for contempt. Then, because for one time he has an excuse, he now wants the whole case against him dismissed. Give me a break!
3
Jun 19, 2008 at 02:33 PM bigwheeel Says:
Without judging about this individual case, the ruling by the US District Court Judge is precedent-setting and will [eventually] become case-law! The determination that accommodating Religious needs [of litigants] is NOT Constitutionally guaranteed, [and is only performed on a voluntary basis by individual judges] will affect many cases in the future!!!
4
Jun 19, 2008 at 10:01 PM Noclue Says:
If is is a constitutional violation to not allow a person in prison to observe his religion; then a priori (kal vachomer) to hold a hearing on a day that attendance would cause a person to violate his religion; absent exigent circumstances.
The judge got it wrong and should be reversed.