Q: I live in a co-op in New York City that doesn’t have a doorman. The front door to the building locks automatically every evening at 9 p.m., and there is an electronic keypad outside that requires a code to open the door. I observe the Sabbath, and cannot use this keypad from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. There is a side door to the building with a keyed lock that leads to the basement, which has a staircase to the lobby. I requested a key to this door but was told it is not for use by any tenants. What responsibility does the co-op have to accommodate residents’ religious practices?
A: Your request for a key to enter a side door in order to adhere to your sincerely held religious belief of Sabbath observance should be honored by your co-op, unless there is a credible reason why tenants’ use of that entrance is dangerous.
If your co-op board refuses to grant this “extremely reasonable request,” that could be evidence of discrimination, exposing it to legal liability, said Ali Frick, who practices discrimination law at Kaufman Lieb Lebowitz & Frick in New York.
“The co-op could be held liable for its neutral policies if they have a disparate impact on a religious group — as its keypad-only policy appears to have,” Ms. Frick said.
You can hire a lawyer to write a letter to the co-op board explaining that you observe the Sabbath and that using a keypad prevents you from keeping your religious practice, in effect denying you equal access to the building.
“If the co-op flatly rejected your request, you can sue for discrimination because they are effectively making the building unavailable to observant Jews,” said Andrew Lieb, who practices discrimination law in New York.
The lawsuit could result in a judge ordering access for you, while also awarding you with emotional support damages, other consequential damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys’ fees, Mr. Lieb said.
A 1994 state court decision on this topic that originated in Queens found in favor of the building, because electronic locks were used to deter crime and did not have a discriminatory intent or effect. However, Mr. Lieb said a different argument could be made, based on a more recent federal appellate case, one that states that the co-op’s actions can be discriminatory if they have a negative impact on one group of people.
“The only excuse for the co-op’s actions that can defeat your claim is if they can show no discriminatory intent and no discriminatory effect, which is impossible given it eliminated observant Jews from entering their housing,” he said.
For weekly email updates on residential real estate news, sign up here.
