YU Pride Alliance v. Yeshiva Univ.
2022 NY Slip Op 07175 (2022)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An educational institution that amended its charter to become a non-denominational institution and is not incorporated as a religious corporation under state law does not qualify for the 'religious corporation' exemption to the New York City Human Rights Law. Therefore, it must comply with the law's public accommodation provisions prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Facts:
- Yeshiva University was originally chartered in 1897 as the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary Association (RIETS) to promote the study of the Talmud and prepare Orthodox Jewish rabbis.
- Over several decades, Yeshiva's charter was amended to allow it to award numerous secular degrees, and it grew into a university with multiple undergraduate and graduate schools.
- In 1967, Yeshiva amended its charter to incorporate under New York's Education Law rather than the Membership Corporations Law.
- In 1969, Yeshiva amended its charter again to 'clarify the corporate status of the University as a non-denominational institution of higher learning,' while the theological seminary (RIETS) was spun off into its own corporation.
- Yeshiva has recognized LGBTQ+ student organizations at three of its graduate schools for over 25 years.
- The YU Pride Alliance, an undergraduate student organization, applied for official recognition from Yeshiva University.
- Yeshiva University denied the YU Pride Alliance's request for formal recognition as an official student club.
Procedural Posture:
- YU Pride Alliance and its members sued Yeshiva University in the Supreme Court, New York County, which is a trial-level court.
- The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on their New York City Human Rights Law claims.
- The trial court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss those claims.
- The trial court issued a permanent injunction ordering Yeshiva University to officially recognize the YU Pride Alliance.
- Yeshiva University (defendant-appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the Appellate Division, First Department.
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 the New York City Human Rights Law's prohibition on discrimination in public accommodations require Yeshiva University, an educational institution not incorporated as a religious corporation, to formally recognize an LGBTQ+ student group despite the university's First Amendment objections?
Opinions:
Majority - Webber, J.P., González, Mendez, Pitt-Burke, JJ.
Yes, the New York City Human Rights Law requires Yeshiva University to recognize the student group. The court held that Yeshiva does not qualify for the City HRL's exemption for religious corporations because its own charter, as amended in 1969, defines it as a 'non-denominational institution of higher learning.' The court noted that exemptions to the City HRL must be construed narrowly. Furthermore, applying the City HRL does not violate Yeshiva's First Amendment rights. The law is a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law that does not target religion, so it is not subject to strict scrutiny. Requiring recognition does not constitute compelled speech, as a school does not endorse student speech it merely permits on a non-discriminatory basis, a fact supported by Yeshiva's long-standing recognition of other LGBTQ+ groups in its graduate schools.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the ability of religiously-affiliated educational institutions to claim exemptions from public accommodation laws in New York City. The court's focus on the university's specific corporate charter and public-facing identity, rather than just its religious heritage, sets a precedent for how such institutions are classified. It signals that if a university operates primarily as a secular, non-denominational educational institution, it cannot later invoke a religious status to justify discriminatory actions that violate neutral, generally applicable anti-discrimination laws. The case reinforces that First Amendment protections against compelled speech and for free exercise are not absolute and may be outweighed by a state's compelling interest in eradicating discrimination in public accommodations.
