Bloch v. Frischholz

587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

For approximately three decades, the Blochs (P) displayed mezuzot on the doorposts outside of their condo units without objection. In 2001, the Association's rules and regulations committee enacted a set of rules to govern certain activities taking place outside the units in the common hallways. From the Rules' enactment until mid-2004, the Association did not remove mezuzot or any other object affixed to the outside of unit doors or doorposts, with the exception of a few pictures, depicting a swastika, a marijuana plant, and the Playboy bunny. In May 2004, the Association began renovating the building's hallways and repainted the walls and doors. The Association asked residents to remove everything from their doors to prepare for the work. P obliged and took down their mezuzot. When the work was finished, they put their mezuzot back up. Without notice to the Blochs, the Association began removing and confiscating the mezuzot. The Association said that mezuzot on doorposts violated Hallway Rules. The Association also confiscated crucifixes, wreaths, Christmas ornaments, political posters, and Chicago Bears pennants. The Board, it rejected a formal proposal by P to change the Rules. The mezuzah removals persisted even during the funeral of Marvin and despite having permission from Frischholz (D). P filed this lawsuit, seeking an injunction and damages for distress, humiliation, and embarrassment. A magistrate judge entered an order prohibiting D from removing P's mezuzot, consistent with a rule change the Board of Managers was considering. D ratified the change, which created an exception to Hallway Rule 1 for religious objects. The City of Chicago amended its code to proscribe in condos and rental properties restrictions on affixing religious signs or symbols to doorposts. P’s claims for an injunction was mooted, but their claim for damages remained. On appeal the panel affirmed. This en banc hearing was held but the circuit.