Q: I reside in a co-op in New York Metropolis that doesn’t have a doorman. The entrance door to the constructing locks routinely each night at 9 p.m., and there may be an digital keypad outdoors that requires a code to open the door. I observe the Sabbath, and can’t use this keypad from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. There’s a facet door to the constructing with a keyed lock that results in the basement, which has a staircase to the foyer. I requested a key to this door however was informed it’s not to be used by any tenants. What accountability does the co-op must accommodate residents’ spiritual practices?
A: Your request for a key to enter a facet door with a purpose to adhere to your sincerely held spiritual perception of Sabbath observance ought to be honored by your co-op, except there’s a credible cause why tenants’ use of that entrance is harmful.
In case your co-op board refuses to grant this “extraordinarily cheap request,” that could possibly be proof of discrimination, exposing it to authorized legal responsibility, mentioned Ali Frick, who practices discrimination regulation at Kaufman Lieb Lebowitz & Frick in New York.
“The co-op could possibly be held responsible for its impartial insurance policies if they’ve a disparate impression on a non secular group — as its keypad-only coverage seems to have,” Ms. Frick mentioned.
You’ll be able to rent a lawyer to jot down a letter to the co-op board explaining that you simply observe the Sabbath and that utilizing a keypad prevents you from preserving your spiritual follow, in impact denying you equal entry to the constructing.
“If the co-op flatly rejected your request, you’ll be able to sue for discrimination as a result of they’re successfully making the constructing unavailable to observant Jews,” mentioned Andrew Lieb, who practices discrimination regulation in New York.
The lawsuit may lead to a choose ordering entry for you, whereas additionally awarding you with emotional assist damages, different consequential damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys’ charges, Mr. Lieb mentioned.
A 1994 state court docket determination on this subject that originated in Queens present in favor of the constructing, as a result of digital locks have been used to discourage crime and didn’t have a discriminatory intent or impact. Nonetheless, Mr. Lieb mentioned a distinct argument could possibly be made, primarily based on a more moderen federal appellate case, one which states that the co-op’s actions could be discriminatory if they’ve a destructive impression on one group of individuals.
“The one excuse for the co-op’s actions that may defeat your declare is that if they’ll present no discriminatory intent and no discriminatory impact, which is unimaginable given it eradicated observant Jews from coming into their housing,” he mentioned.
For weekly electronic mail updates on residential actual property information, enroll right here.
