Elmora Hebrew Center, Inc. v. Fishman
125 N.J. 404, 1991 N.J. LEXIS 84, 593 A.2d 725 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party that consents to and participates in the proceedings of a religious tribunal is bound by that tribunal's decision, thereby waiving the right to later challenge, on First Amendment grounds, a civil court's enforcement of that decision.
Facts:
- In 1983, Elmora Hebrew Center, Inc. (EHC), a synagogue, hired Yale M. Fishman as its rabbi under a two-year employment contract.
- Disputes arose between Rabbi Fishman and factions within the congregation regarding his rabbinical duties, his attendance at law school, and his handling of synagogue funds.
- Despite ongoing disputes, EHC's Board of Trustees voted in February 1985 to renew Fishman's contract for a three-year term.
- Congregational conflict intensified with accusations that Fishman had fraudulently altered his renewal contract and diverted synagogue funds for personal use.
- On February 2, 1986, the Board of Trustees voted to terminate Fishman's employment.
- Fishman contested the dismissal, refused to vacate the synagogue's residence, and allegedly disrupted services conducted by a new rabbi hired in September 1986.
Procedural Posture:
- In March 1986, Elmora Hebrew Center, Inc. (EHC) sued Rabbi Fishman in the Superior Court, Chancery Division, seeking damages, an accounting, and an injunction.
- The trial court determined some issues were religious and ordered the parties to submit the dispute to a Beth Din (a rabbinical court), reserving jurisdiction over remaining civil issues.
- EHC, as appellant, filed an interlocutory appeal to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the trial court's referral order.
- EHC participated in the Beth Din proceedings, which issued a decision awarding Fishman $100,000 and requiring him to resign.
- On Fishman's motion, the Chancery Division entered a final judgment confirming the Beth Din's award, finding that EHC had consented to the proceedings.
- EHC, as appellant, appealed the final judgment to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the trial court's decision.
- EHC petitioned the Supreme Court of New Jersey for certification, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a religious organization's consent to and participation in a religious tribunal's proceedings preclude it from later challenging, on First Amendment grounds, a civil court's enforcement of that tribunal's decision?
Opinions:
Majority - Handler, J.
Yes. A religious organization's consent to a religious tribunal's authority precludes it from later challenging the enforcement of that tribunal's decision on constitutional grounds. The court found that EHC's actions demonstrated sufficient consent to the Beth Din's jurisdiction, analogizing the situation to common-law arbitration where a party who submits to the proceedings is bound by the outcome. Evidence of consent included the EHC president signing a written arbitration agreement, the synagogue's full participation in the hearings, and its successful effort to persuade the Beth Din to assume jurisdiction over separate libel suits Fishman had filed. Because EHC voluntarily submitted to the Beth Din's authority and participated in its proceedings, it waived its right to later object to the outcome on First Amendment grounds. While the court affirmed the judgment, it criticized the lower courts for improperly referring civil issues to a religious tribunal in the first instance, stating that civil courts have a duty to adjudicate secular legal questions and should carefully distinguish them from purely religious ones.
Analysis:
This decision establishes consent and participation as a powerful waiver of First Amendment challenges in disputes between religious parties. It provides courts with a pragmatic method to enforce resolutions reached by religious bodies without becoming entangled in doctrinal issues, by treating the proceedings as a form of binding arbitration. The case also serves as a strong caution to trial courts, instructing them not to abdicate their duty to resolve secular legal claims (like contract or fraud disputes) by broadly referring entire cases to religious tribunals. The ruling thus creates a dual message: courts must respect party autonomy when they consent to religious arbitration, but courts must also fulfill their own constitutional duty to decide civil matters when parties have not so consented.
