You are on page 1of 11

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

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 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: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

2

Case: 1:12-cv-07571 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/21/12 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: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.

3

Case: 1:12-cv-07571 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/21/12 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: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 4

Case: 1:12-cv-07571 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/21/12 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: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.

5

Case: 1:12-cv-07571 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/21/12 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: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.

6

Case: 1:12-cv-07571 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/21/12 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7

19.

No remedy can be as adequate or complete as the equitable remedy of an injunction enjoining Defendant’s discriminatory and illegal conduct.

7

Case: 1:12-cv-07571 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/21/12 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8

COUNT I – 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Against all Defenendants 20. 21. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-19 as if stated herein in full: 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. 24. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-22 as if stated herein in full. 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

8

Case: 1:12-cv-07571 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/21/12 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: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. 29. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-27 as if stated herein in full. 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 9

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

10

JS 44 (Rev. 09/11)

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the09/21/12 Page 1 of 1 PageIDrequired by law, except as provided Case: 1:12-cv-07571 Document #: 4 Filed: filing and service of pleadings or other papers as #:13 by 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 initiating the civil docket sheet.

CIVIL COVER SHEET

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS Lubavitch-Chabad of Illinois, Inc., Lubavitch-Chabad of Evanston, Inc., and Rabbi Dov Hillel Klein (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Cook County, IL
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

DEFENDANTS Northwestern University,Timothy Stevens, and Patricia Telles-Irvin

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
NOTE: In land condemnation cases, use the location of the tract of land involved.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
R. Tamara de Silva, 650 N. Dearborn, Suite 700, Chicago, IL 60654 Jonathan Lubin, 39 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1400, Chicago, IL 60603

Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION
1 U.S. Government Plaintiff
s

(Place an “X” in One Box Only)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff)
(For Diversity Cases Only) PTF Citizen of This State 1 DEF 1 and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 of Business In This State Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State Foreign Nation 5 5

3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)

2

U.S. Government Defendant

4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

Citizen of Another State

2

2

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country

3

3

6

6

IV. NATURE OF SUIT
CONTRACT 110 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment 151 Medicare Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans (Excl. Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran’s Benefits 160 Stockholders’ Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise

(Place an “X” in One Box Only) TORTS PERSONAL INJURY 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers’ Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury 362 Personal Injury Med. Malpractice CIVIL RIGHTS 440 Other Civil Rights 441 Voting 442 Employment 443 Housing/ Accommodations 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment 446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other 448 Education PERSONAL INJURY 365 Personal Injury Product Liability 367 Health Care/ Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 370 Other Fraud 371 Truth in Lending 380 Other Personal Property Damage 385 Property Damage Product Liability PRISONER PETITIONS 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence Habeas Corpus: 530 General 535 Death Penalty 540 Mandamus & Other 550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of Confinement

FORFEITURE/PENALTY 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881 690 Other

BANKRUPTCY 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 PROPERTY RIGHTS 820 Copyrights 830 Patent 840 Trademark

OTHER STATUTES 375 False Claims Act 400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Environmental Matters 895 Freedom of Information Act 896 Arbitration 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property

LABOR 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 740 Railway Labor Act 751 Family and Medical Leave Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act

SOCIAL SECURITY 861 HIA (1395ff) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g))

s

FEDERAL TAX SUITS 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) 871 IRS—Third Party 26 USC 7609

IMMIGRATION 462 Naturalization Application 463 Habeas Corpus Alien Detainee (Prisoner Petition) 465 Other Immigration Actions

V. ORIGIN
1 Original Proceeding

(Place an “X” in One Box Only)

2 Removed from State Court

3

Remanded from Appellate Court

4 Reinstated or Reopened

Transferred from 5 another district
(specify)

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 and
423, enter the case number and judge for any associated bankruptcy matter previously adjudicated by a judge of this Court. Use a separate attachment if necessary.)

Discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981, 42 U.S.C. 2000a, and 42 U.S.C. 2000d
VIII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P. 23
s

DEMAND $

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

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

9/21/2012