lubavitch-chabad v. nu

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

LUBAVITCH-CHABAD OF ILLINOIS, INC. )

LUBAVITCH-CHABAD OF EVANSTON, INC. )

d/b/a THE TANNENBAUM CHABAD HOUSE, )

and RABBI DOV HILLEL KLEIN, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY )

TIMOTHY STEVENS, PATRICIA )

TELLES-IRVIN, )

)

Defendant. )

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Case: 1:12-cv-07571 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/21/12 of 10 PageID #:1

2

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE ................................................................................................................... 3

PARTIES ............................................................................................................................................................ 3

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 4

COUNT I – 42 U.S.C. § 1981 .......................................................................................................................... 8

COUNT II - 42 U.S.C. § 2000A ...................................................................................................................... 8

COUNT III - 42 U.S.C. § 2000d ..................................................................................................................... 9

JURY DEMAND ............................................................................................................................................ 10


3

Plaintiffs Lubavitch-Chabad of Illinois, Inc., Lubavitch Chabad of Evanston, Inc. d/b/a The

Tannenbaum Chabad House and Rabbi Dov Hillel Klein (“Plaintiffs”) by and through their

attorneys, R. Tamara de Silva and Jonathan Lubin respectfully state their complaint against

Northwestern University (“Defendant”) as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil action, seeking legal and equitable relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000a (“Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964”) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (“Title VI of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964”) for Defendant’s discrimination against the Chabbad

Chassidism and the Jewish faith.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a),

1367 and under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction.

3. Venue is proper pursuant to Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because all defendants

reside in this District.

PARTIES

4. Lubavitch-Chabad of Illinois, Inc. (hereinafter “LCI”) is a non-profit corporation in the

State of Illinois, whose purpose inter alia is to provide immersive education and religious

experiences to student, facu about the Lubavitch-Chabad Jewish movement, a branch of

Chassidic Judaism (hereinafter, “Chabad Chassidism”), and to provide religious

opportunities for all who are practice or are interested in Chabad Chassidism. LCI

operates through, and is affiliated with, over 30 centers, or “Chabad Houses” in the State

of Illinois.


4

5. Lubavitch-Chabad of Evanston, Inc (hereinafter, “Tannenbaum Chabad House”) is one

such organization. The Tannenbaum Chabad House was established to disseminate

Jewish and Chassidic teachings and to provide an immersive Jewish and Chassidic

experience to Northwestern University students and faculty, Evanston residents, and

visitors from all over the world. Tannenbaum Chabad House has existed for 27, has

forged lifetime relationships, and has had a deeply positive impact at all levels of campus

life and beyond. At the very inception of the Tannenbaum House, in the early 1980s,

Chabad had to litigate its right practice religion freely in the City of Evanston. The

Court, in hearing the matter, determined that “the real fear of the defendant City and

intervenors is that [Chabad] will use its property to permit the plaintiffs to practice their

ancient religion in the way they have conducted it for the past centuries.” Today, Chabad

once again has to fight for that right. The Tannenbaum Chabad House operates out of a

location in Evanston, Illinois.

6. Rabbi Dov Hillel Klein is the director, Rabbi, and founder of the Tannenbaum Chabad

House. Rabbi Klein has been the director of the Tannenbaum Chabad House for almost

30 years. Rabbi Klein resides in Evanston, Illinois.

7. Northwestern University (“University”) is a university, which receives public funding,

including funding from the federal government, and is located in Evanston, Illinois.

University Chaplain Timothy Stevens and Vice President for Student Affairs Patricia

Telles-Irvin made the decision Complained of, to discriminate against the Tannenbaum

Chabad House, Lubavitch-Chabad of Illinois, and Rabbi Klein.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. Northwestern University is home to a large number of religious organizations with

which it openly affiliates, including organizations representing many of the world’s


5

religions. The University claims that it offers a wide variety of religious worship and

community options but is discriminating against Chabad and the Jewish faith.

9. Faith based and religious organizations contribute to campus life, and offer students the

opportunity to practice the religion of their choosing.

10. Until September 11, 2012, the University associated officially with the Tannenbaum

Chabad House. As a result of this association, Rabbi Klein occupied several positions in

the University Chaplaincy. As a result of that association, Rabbi Klein was also able to

freely interact with students on campus, just like other chaplains and other religious

leaders who interacted with University students.

11. Through one such position, Rabbi Klein contracted with a third party, Sodexo, to

facilitate the sale of kosher food – that is, food that permissible for Torah-abiding,

Jewish law-abiding, people to consume. As part of that contract, Rabbi Klein would

receive a stipend each year for his services to Sodexo.

12. Abruptly, and without warning, over the late summer of 2012, the University announced

its intention to disassociate with the Tannebaum Chabad House, Rabbi Klein and the

Jewish faith. The decision was announced by Defendants Stevens and Telles-Irvin.

13. Northwestern’s decision to single out the Tannebaum Chabad House and discriminate

against the Chabad and the Jewish faith was memorialized in a letter to Rabbi Klein on

September 11, 2012, signed by Defendants Stevens and Telles-Irvin.

14. Northwestern had no legal reason to disassociate from the Tannenbaum House. The

University knew that its proffered reasons were specious and based upon innuendo and

falsehood. The reasons offered for that disassociation were wholly pretextual and meant

to single out Chabad against all other faiths for removal from Northwestern University.


6

15. Even if the reasons offered for that disassociation were not false, many other campus

organizations including religious organizations, had committed the same acts for which

Rabbi Klein stood falsely accused. The University was aware of this, and chose only to

disassociate with Chabad.

16. Those actions constituted discriminatory and disparate treatment taken solely on the

basis of Rabbi Klein’s, LCI’s and the Tannenbaum Chabad House’s affiliation with

Chabad Chassidism. Northwestern University would not have taken this action if

Plaintiffs were not adherents of Chabad Chassidism.

17. As a result of the disassociation, the University seeks to enjoin Rabbi Klein, as a

representative of the Tannenbaum Chabad House, from participating in “any programs,

services, or events associated with Northwestern students, staff, or faculty. The

University has forbid him from renewing his contract with Sodexo, a third-party that is

unaffiliated with the University. The University has sought to forbid him from

sponsoring a Birthright Israel trip – a free tour for University students – with University

students, despite that Birthright Israel is not at all affiliated with Northwestern

University. The University has also indicated that it will be requiring Alpha Epsilon Pi to

drop Rabbi Klein as an advisor.

18. If Rabbi Klein is enjoined from participating in the above referenced activities, and

contracts, and if Rabbi Klein is cut off from providing authentic Jewish and Chassidic

experiences to Northwestern University students, it would case irreparable harm to

Rabbi Klein, to the charter and purposes of the Tannenbaum Chabad House, and to

Lubavitch-Chabad of Illinois. It would also cause irreparable harm to Jewish students of

Northwestern University.


7

19. No remedy can be as adequate or complete as the equitable remedy of an injunction

enjoining Defendant’s discriminatory and illegal conduct.


8

COUNT I – 42 U.S.C. § 1981

Against all Defenendants

20. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-19 as if stated herein in full:

21. The University’s decision to prevent Rabbi Klein, and the Tannenbaum Chabad House

from contracting with Sodexo, Birthright Israel, and Alpha Epsilon Pi, violates 42 U.S.C.

1981.

22. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court will enter an Order finding

Defendant to have violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981, ordering Defendant cease and desist all

such illegal behavior, and awarding all possible damages, including an injunction, actual

damages, punitive damages, and reasonable costs and attorney’s fees.

COUNT II - 42 U.S.C. § 2000A

TITLE II OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

Against all Defendants

23. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-22 as if stated herein in full.

24. Association with the University constitutes a place of public accommodation for the

purposes of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

25. The University’s students include students that come from across the country. The

University is a significant force in Illinois’ economy, and therefore affects interstate

commerce.

26. The University’s decision constitutes a violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under 42 U.S.C. §

2000a.

27. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court will enter an Order finding

Defendant to have violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, ordering Defendant cease and desist all


9

such illegal behavior, and awarding all possible damages, including an injunction, actual

damages, punitive damages, and reasonable costs and attorney’s fees.

COUNT III - 42 U.S.C. § 2000d

TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

Against all Defendants

28. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-27 as if stated herein in full.

29. The University receives significant funding from the federal government. Therefore, the

University is not permitted to discriminate against individuals or campus groups on the

basis of their religion.

30. The University’s decision constitutes impermissible and unconscionable discrimination

against the Plaintiffs solely on the basis of their religion.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court will enter an Order finding

Defendant to have violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, Ordering Defendants cease and desist all such illegal

behavior, and Awarding all possible damages, including an injunction, actual damages, punitive

damages, and reasonable costs and attorney’s fees.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ R. Tamara de Silva (Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel)

R. Tamara de Silva (Attorney #6244445) 650 N. Dearborn St., Suite 700 Chicago, Illinois 60654 (312) 913-9999 September 14, 2012

By: /s/Jonathan Lubin (Plaintiffs’ Attorney)

Jonathan Lubin (Attorney #6297065) 39 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1400 Chicago, Illinois 60604 (312) 332-7374


10

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand a jury to hear and decide all issues of fact.

Respectfully submitted, September 14, 2012

/s/R. Tamara de Silva

R. Tamara de Silva

Attorney # 6244445

Attorney for the Plaintiffs

650 N. Dearborn St., Suite 700

Chicago, Illinois 60654

(312) 913-9999

By: /s/Jonathan Lubin (Plaintiffs’ Attorney)

Jonathan Lubin

(Attorney #6297065)

39 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1400

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 332-7374


JS 44 (Rev. 09/11) CIVIL COVER SHEETThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as providedby local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiatingthe civil docket sheet.

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) NOTE: In land condemnation cases, use the location of the tract of land involved.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff)(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

1 U.S. Government 3Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEFPlaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4

of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 400 State Reapportionment130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 410 Antitrust140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 430 Banks and Banking150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 450 Commerce

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 460 Deportation151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 470 Racketeer Influenced and152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations

Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 480 Consumer Credit (Excl. Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 490 Cable/Sat TV

153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 850 Securities/Commodities/ of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange

160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 740 Railway Labor Act 864 SSID Title XVI 891 Agricultural Acts195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 865 RSI (405(g)) 893 Environmental Matters196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage Leave Act 895 Freedom of Information

362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 790 Other Labor Litigation Act Med. Malpractice 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. 896 Arbitration

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 899 Administrative Procedure210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act/Review or Appeal of 220 Foreclosure 441 Voting Sentence or Defendant) Agency Decision230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment Habeas Corpus: 871 IRS—Third Party 950 Constitutionality of240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ 530 General 26 USC 7609 State Statutes245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 462 Naturalization Application

Employment 550 Civil Rights 463 Habeas Corpus -446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee

Other 560 Civil Detainee - (Prisoner Petition)448 Education Conditions of 465 Other Immigration

Confinement Actions

V. ORIGINTransferred fromanother district(specify)

(Place an “X” in One Box Only)1 Original

Proceeding2 Removed from

State Court 3 Remanded from

Appellate Court4 Reinstated or

Reopened 5 6 Multidistrict

Litigation

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Enter U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of cause.)

VII. PREVIOUS BANKRUPTCY MATTERS (For nature of suit 422 and423, enter the case number and judge for any associated bankruptcy matter previouslyadjudicated by a judge of this Court. Use a separate attachment if necessary.)

VIII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTIONUNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:JURY DEMAND: Yes No

IX. This case (check one box) is not a refiling of a previously dismissed action

is a refiling of case number ______________ previously dismissed by Judge ___________________

Date Signature of Attorney of Record

Lubavitch-Chabad of Illinois, Inc., Lubavitch-Chabad of Evanston, Inc., and Rabbi Dov Hillel Klein

Northwestern University,Timothy Stevens, and Patricia Telles-Irvin

R. Tamara de Silva, 650 N. Dearborn, Suite 700, Chicago, IL 60654Jonathan Lubin, 39 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1400, Chicago, IL 60603

Cook County, IL

■

■

Discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981, 42 U.S.C. 2000a, and 42 U.S.C. 2000d

■

■

9/21/2012

Case: 1:12-cv-07571 Document #: 4 Filed: 09/21/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:13

lubavitch-chabad v. nu

Documents