Authored by Shiryn Ghermezian and published in The Algemeiner on March 16, 2023 . A legal advocacy organization is urging the World Rugby Union (WRU) to immediately allow an Israeli rugby team to participate in a competition in South Africa after the team was uninvited by the South African Rugby Union (SARU). . The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which is representing the Israeli team Tel Aviv Heat, highlighted in its letter on Thursday to WRU’s executive committee SARU’s “discriminatory exclusion” of the Israeli team from the Mzansi Challenge, which begins on March 24 with teams from Kenya, Namibia, Zimbabwe and six South African provinces. . The organization is asking WRU to take “an emergency decision on this matter” by acknowledging that Tel Aviv Heat have been discriminated against by SARU, and forcing the latter to “immediately” reinstate Tel Aviv Heat into the Mzansi Challenge and also apologize to the Israeli team. The committee is also being asked to impose sanctions on SARU for their actions. . SARU said on Feb. 3 that it withdrew its invitation to have Tel Aviv Heat compete in the Mzansi Challenge, saying that it “listened to the opinions of important stakeholder groups and have taken this decision to avoid the likelihood of the competition becoming a source of division.” The announcement was abruptly made with no prior notice to Tel Aviv Heat after supporters of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel pressured SARU, saying it “will have blood on its hands” if it allowed the “apartheid Israeli team” to compete in the Mzansi Challenge. . The Louis D. Brandeis Center noted in its letter that SARU further claimed its exclusion of Tel Aviv Heat was “not due to shortcomings from the Tel Aviv’s side” and gave two reasons for its decision: “the threat to the security of all people participating,” and a concern that any disruption of the Mzansi Challenge would threaten the principle “that rugby must always be ‘stronger together.’” . However, the legal group believes that SARU’s claim that rugby must be “stronger together” appears “to be coded language meaning ‘stronger without Israelis.’” The Louis D. Brandeis Center reminded the WRU that discriminating against athletes based on their nationality and country violates the governing body’s bylaws and code of conduct as well as the “fundamental principles of international sports.” . “Evidence indicates that the Heat were excluded as a team because they are based in Israel,” the legal group said. “The members of the team come from diverse backgrounds. They were excluded from the Mzansi Challenge, however, due to their association with Israel.” . The group also drew attention to a number of BDS-affiliated groups that took credit for SARU’s decision against Tel Aviv Heat and released statements praising the move to disinvite the team from the Mzansi Challenge. . The legal group further pointed out that WRU has never before permitted member unions, like SARU, “to discriminate on their own initiative” and that nothing in WRU’s bylaws allows national unions “authorization to discriminate” on their own accord. The WRU has excluded only three other competitors in the past based on nationality, according to Louis D. Brandeis Center — apartheid-era South Africa, and Russia and Belarus were banned after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. . Others organizations which have asked SARU to amend its actions against Tel Aviv Heat include the Israel-based International Legal Forum, the Jewish group South African Friends of Israel and the British group UK Lawyers for Israel. . In February, a New Zealand-based lawyer filed a legal complaint with the World Rugby Council about SARU’s move. The Israel Rugby Union and Tel Aviv Heat have also threatened to take legal action against SARU.
Washington, D.C. (March 16, 2023) – The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB) is pleased to announce the appointment of Emma Enig as the organization’s first-ever Director of Policy Education. . “As the Louis D. Brandeis Center expands to address the growing problem of anti-Semitism, we are pleased to strengthen our public policy and civil education capabilities with this key hire,” said Brandeis Center Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus. “Decisionmakers need to understand both the nature and scope of current anti-Semitism and also the legal and policy tools that are needed to address it. Emma Enig is a skilled professional who will help the Brandeis Center to ensure that those who need our educational resources are able to get them.” . “I am thrilled to welcome Emma to the Brandeis Center in this new capacity,” said Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin. “Emma has worked with us for years, first as college intern and then as a JIGSAW Fellow. She is extremely well versed in our issues and, therefore, uniquely qualified for this position. One of our greatest challenges in combatting anti-Semitism, is that most people don’t recognize anti-Semitism or understand how to utilize legal and policy tools to address it. We have, therefore, created this new role to expand our educational programming to address this crucial need. I’m excited to work with Emma as we develop and grow this important Brandeis Center initiative.” . “Working for the Brandeis Center has always been my dream job,” Ms. Enig proclaimed. “The organization’s pioneering legal approach to help school administrators recognize campus anti-Semitism – and hold them accountable if they don’t act quickly and decisively to combat the problem – is practical and powerful, especially in comparison to groups’ earlier approaches. There’s a reason the ‘Marcus Policy’ is being used to file legal complaints of campus anti-Semitism by groups in addition to LDB now – because it works! I’m excited to educate the levers of power and amplify the Brandeis Center’s message to those who can make a difference in Jewish students’ lives.” . Enig, a D.C.-area native, is a second-year law student at Antonin Scalia Law School and graduate of George Washington University, where she double-majored in Jewish History and Political Science. She has educated others on First Amendment protections, promoted minority representation in politics, and worked with non- and bipartisan organizations to further Jewish causes. Using her extensive historical, political, and legal knowledge of anti-Semitism in the U.S. and abroad, Enig previously worked on both international campaigns against Jew-hatred and domestically for the Republican Jewish Coalition as Deputy Grassroots Director and CAMERA as a Campus Fellow.
Contact: Nicole Rosen 202-309-5724 Alerts other rugby unions that teams playing in tournament risk sanctions . Washington, D.C. (March 15, 2023): The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, the new legal team representing the Tel Aviv Heat, today urged the World Rugby Union to take immediate emergency action to reverse South Africa Rugby Union’s last-minute exclusion of the Israeli team from the Mzansi Challenge competition. . The Brandeis Center strongly urged the World Rugby Union that since the South Africa Rugby Union’s (SARU) discriminatory exclusion of the Heat violates the World Rugby Union’s bylaws, they should immediately reinstate the Heat as a competitor in the upcoming international tournament, direct SARU to apologize for its discriminatory act, and impose any sanctions they deem appropriate under the rules. . The Brandeis Center also called on each of the individual rugby unions whose clubs are scheduled to participate in the tournament — Kenya, Mexico, Namibia, and Zimbabwe – to stand with the Heat and oppose SARU’s discriminatory conduct, and they cautioned the unions that teams which participate in competitions found to violate World Rugby Union bylaws could be subject to sanctions. . The Tel Aviv Heat was confirmed to participate in the upcoming tournament, scheduled to begin on March 24th, until SARU did a complete about-face and notified the Heat that “SA [South Africa] Rugby has withdrawn an invitation to the Tel Aviv Heat to play in the Mzansi Challenge, following representations from multiple stakeholders.” The World Rugby Union is currently investigating the matter. . In its legal letter to the World Rugby Union, the Brandeis Center cites evidence that the decision to exclude the Heat was made for discriminatory reasons, because the team is based in Israel. The South African BDS Coalition – which had called on SARU to rescind the Heat’s invitation – posted on Twitter, “BDS works!,” above text referring to SARU’s decision. The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel thanked BDS activists “for standing up for Palestinian rights and taking swift action to compel SARU to reverse the misguided decision” to invite the Heat. South African newspaper Al-Qalam titled its coverage of the Heat’s exclusion, “Victory for SA BDS Coalition and Palestine Solidarity.” And the South African National Union of Metalworkers declared, “The decision was reversed because of pressure, particularly from organizations like the BDS Coalition who launched a public campaign rejecting” the Heat’s invitation. . The World Rugby Union bylaws explicitly prohibit “discrimination of any kind against a country, or against a private person or groups of people including on account of age, gender, marital status, maternity status, disability, race (including color, nationality, ethnic or national origin), religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation or any other reason.” . As noted by the Brandeis Center, member unions like SARU undertake to abide by World Rugby Union bylaws, including these rules prohibiting discrimination. Unions may be sanctioned for misconduct, including “acts or statements that are, or conduct that is, discriminatory by reason of religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, color or national or ethnic origin[.]” Similarly, member unions are bound by the World Rugby Union’s Code of Conduct, which prohibits discrimination, banning “anything which is likely to intimidate, offend, insult, humiliate or discriminate against any other Person on the ground of their religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, color, or national or ethnic origin.” The Brandeis Center notes that on the rare occasions when a team has been excluded from competition, the World Rugby Union and International Olympic Committee have made those decisions – national unions have no right to discriminate on their own initiative. . The Brandeis Center also emphasizes that international sports have repeatedly rejected discrimination against Israeli teams and athletes. For example, the World Paralympic Committee relocated its 2019 Swimming Championships out of Malaysia to the United Kingdom because Malaysia had not agreed to permit Israeli athletes to compete. Judo events scheduled to be held in Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates have been cancelled because the host countries would not allow the Israeli flag to be raised. The 2019 World Schools Chess Championship, scheduled to be held in Tunisia, was eventually held in Turkey instead after Tunisian authorities refused to grant a visa to an Israeli competitor. In addition, the Brandeis Center notes that many of the countries that World Rugby Union member unions hail from have been the subject of investigations into alleged human rights violations, including the United States and Iran. As a result, allowing national unions to unilaterally discriminate against each other or against teams from other unions on the basis of alleged violations would destabilize international rugby and undermine the inclusive values of international sports. . To view this press release as a PDF, click here. . The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law is an independent, unaffiliated, nonprofit corporation established to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all. LDB engages in research, education, and legal advocacy to combat the resurgence of anti-Semitism on college and university campuses, in the workplace, and elsewhere. It empowers students by training them to understand their legal rights and educates administrators and employers on best practices to combat racism and anti-Semitism. The Brandeis Center is not affiliated with the Massachusetts university, the Kentucky law school, or any of the other institutions that share the name and honor the memory of the late U.S. Supreme Court justice.
Authored by Joshua Q. Nelson and published in Fox News on March 14, 2023 . A Jewish lawyer who was called a “racist” and a “Karen” by her colleagues won more than $170,000 in a discrimination suit that alleged antisemitic harassment. . The Bronx Defenders legal aid group paid $170,000 in a settlement for a discrimination lawsuit from former staffer Debbie Jonas. A taxpayer-backed Bronx law firm called The Bronx Defenders was forced to issue an apology and a $170,000 settlement for alleged discrimination against a Zionist Jewish staffer, according to the New York Post. . The Bronx Defenders reportedly admitted to no lawful wrongdoing in the confidential settlement. . “You may remember that I was called a racist, a colonizer and a karen [slang for entitled White person], and I was told that I was worse than the dirt under your feet and that my children were murderers,” former The Bronx Defenders staffer Debbie Jonas said in an email Wednesday to The Bronx Defenders employees to inform them about the outcome of the settlement. . Jonas, who worked at The Bronx Defenders for eight years, has children with dual citizenship in Israel and the U.S. who have served in the Israel Defense Forces. . “I was cursed and badgered until I could no longer stand the hostility,” Jonas said. . Shannon Cumberbatch, the managing director of people, equity and institutional transformation, sent out an email partly blasting Israel during the ongoing dispute with Palestinians in Gaza. Her email, which was addressed to her “anti-oppression team,” compared the situation to “sanctioned genocide” against Blacks and Native Americans in America. . “The present reality of the displacement, disenfranchisement and military violence happening abroad is reminiscent of the settler colonialism, state violence and sanctioned genocide weaponized against Native and people of color in the United States,” Cumberbatch said. . In light of the settlement, The Bronx Defenders Executive Director Justine Olderman issued an apology for staffers’ mistreatment of Jonas. The firm also agreed to undergo antisemitism training for all employees provided by the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. . “I feel a special kind of shame for not speaking up in the face of internal emails containing hateful personal attacks on you and your family,” Olderman said. . She went on to say that The Bronx Defenders “stands for the fundamental principle of treating people, whether client, community member or staff with compassion, care and dignity. I am personally sorry and ashamed that both I and the organization I lead did not live up to those values.” . The Bronx Defenders obtained more than $300 million in city and state funding over the past decade to represent poor defendants in criminal and civil cases. According to their website, they also claim to defend 27,000 low-income Bronx residents in criminal, civil, child welfare and “immigration cases, and reach thousands more through community intake and outreach programs.” . “The Bronx Defenders is a public defender nonprofit that is radically transforming how low-income people are represented in the legal system. We are committed to building a workplace where staff members of diverse backgrounds, beliefs and experiences can thrive and where we navigate disagreement, conflict and harm in healthy and productive ways. Whenever we fall short of these values, we’ll take action to ensure every member of our team is respected,” a spokesperson for the group said.
Washington, D.C. (March 9, 2023) – The Louis D. Brandeis Center commends Senator Risch (R-ID) and his senate colleagues on their recent letter to the Department of Education, highlighting concerns about taxpayer-funded anti-Semitism on college campuses. The letter to Secretary Cardona, signed by fifteen U.S. senators, questions whether the Department of Education is properly enforcing a Higher Education Act (HEA), Title VI requirement that federally funded college programs must “reflect diverse perspectives and a wide range of views.” It is apparent that many of the federally funded Near East and Middle East Studies programs show extraordinary bias against Israel and have been driving increased anti-Semitism in American higher education. Senator Risch and his colleagues have commendably underscored this issue with the Department of Education. . The Brandeis Center raised public awareness of this issue in our 2014 whitepaper, The Morass of Middle East Studies: Title VI of the Higher Education Act and Federally Funded Area Studies. As The Morass explains, many university-based Middle East Studies programs have misused federal Title VI funds, which were intended to provide a pipeline of well-educated, multi-lingual recruits for America’s defense and national security agencies. Over the years, the purposes of this program have been perverted, as Middle East Studies programs have become propagandizers of politically monolithic anti-Zionist indoctrination. This serves neither the purposes of the federal program nor the aims of higher education. Congress wisely responded to this problem by requiring grant recipients to certify that they would provide diverse perspectives and a wide range of views. Unfortunately, recent reports suggest that the Education Department is not taking seriously its role in this process. . Worse, as the senators recognize, the anti-Zionist ideological bias of these programs may be exacerbating the rise of campus anti-Semitism. The Risch letter explains that these programs and the professors who oversee them engage in actions that constitute anti-Semitism under the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism. The IHRA definition makes clear which actions are inherently antisemitic while still allowing for criticism of Israel. Some examples include holding Israel to a standard not required of any other democratic nation, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to Nazi Germany, or denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination. . LDB has long advocated for reform in the Department of Education’s oversight and enforcement of the HEA, recommending that the “department should evaluate university plans and performance to ensure that Diverse Perspectives are included. Universities should play their role as well, reforming Title VI programs from within, ensuring the inclusion of diverse perspectives, providing appropriate program review, and establishing a grievance procedure as a protection against noncompliance.” . In recent years, investigations have continued to uncover anti-Semitic and anti-Israel bias at many universities which receive Title VI funding from the Department of Education. From 2010 to 2013, UCLA’s Center for Near East Studies spent the majority of its events focusing on biased portrayals of Israel. In 2019, the joint Middle Eastern Studies program between Duke University and UNC Chapel Hill received a letter from President Trump’s Department of Education for providing a biased curriculum to students and failing to meet legal requirements under Title VI. A recent study also found “160 academic departments at 120 U.S. colleges and universities issued or endorsed wholly one-sided, anti-Israel statements containing rhetoric that meets the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism.” . The Department of Education states that their “Absolute Priority 1” for grant selection and distribution goes towards applicants that “explain how the activities funded by the grant will reflect diverse perspectives and a wide range of views and generate debate on world regions and international affairs.” Nevertheless, Education Department documents acknowledge that their grant reviewers are not evaluating the assurances that grantees provide of their compliance with the statutory requirement on academic diversity, acknowledging that “the reviewers will see [the diversity] statement; however, it is not evaluated as part of the [TRF] and selection criteria.” This sends universities a signal that the Education Department is not taking their statutory requirement seriously. . Sen. Risch has properly requested that the Department of Education answer the following questions, which will shed light on whether Title VI requirements are being disregarded, by April 28, 2023: . To what extent have college and university programs in the United States used federal funds on speakers and programs that meet the IHRA working definition of antisemitism over the last decade? If the Department of Education does not know because you are not sufficiently reviewing grantee reports on HEA Title VI activities, why is the Department not enforcing the law? Has the Department of Education ever evaluated applicants’ viewpoint-diversity statements? If so, when did it stop evaluating those statements? What was the reasoning for that decision? Does the Department of Education understand its failure to evaluate viewpoint-diversity statements sends an unmistakable signal it does not place importance on this issue? If the Department doesn’t even evaluate these statements, how can the Department differentiate between those applicants who are making sincere efforts to address this problem and those who are not? Please outline the Department of Education’s plan for ensuring programs and professors on college and university campuses receiving HEA Title VI funding are in compliance with federal requirements requiring diverse perspectives. What is your best estimate of how many colleges and universities across the U.S. have become unsafe for Jewish students? How can the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights and other offices ensure Jewish students have demonstrated reasons to feel safe on campus? . We look forward to Secretary Cardona’s response to these important questions. We continue to encourage the Department of Education to investigate the anti-Semitic nature of many of their grant recipient programs and clarify their grant selection process. Sen. Risch and his colleagues have taken an important step in ensuring that the Department of Education maintains its dedication to promoting diversity and that federally funded programs are held accountable if they do engage in anti-Semitism. . To read this statement on a Brandeis Center letterhead PDF, click here.
Letter from 15 U.S. Senators to Education Secretary Miguel Cardona highlighting concerns about taxpayer-funded anti-Semitism in Middle East Studies programs – March 8, 2023 Fifteen U.S. Senators accused the Biden administration of allowing “taxpayer-funded antisemitism” on college campuses, arguing that the prevalence of these events and programs violate federal law and are making Jewish students feel less safe on campus. Letter-to-Dept-of-Education-on-Taxpayer-Funded-Antisemitism-Final-Version-RischDownload
Brandeis Center Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus is among the speakers for this exciting event in Palm Beach, Florida, presented by The Palm Beach Synagogue. . The event takes place 8:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, March 28 at The Colony Hotel in Palm Beach, Florida — followed by a 6:00 p.m. dinner reception at The Palm Beach Synagogue. . For more information, contact Rabbi Shneor Minsky at shneor@palmbeachsynagogue.org or call 561-838-9002 x4.
The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Right Under Law (the Brandeis Center) commends Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) President Eric W. Kaler and Colorado State University (CSU) Interim Executive President Dr. Rick Miranda for their strong public statements condemning anti-Semitism and anti-Israel activity on their campuses. As the Brandeis Center noted in its letter congratulating President Kaler, “Such leadership has been sorely needed at this time when anti-Semitism has risen to historic levels, including on college campuses around the country.” CWRU’s President Kaler demonstrated exemplary leadership and moral clarity by condemning the “profoundly anti-Israel and anti-Semitic” Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) resolution passed by the undergraduate student government last semester. As President Kaler correctly noted in his statement: “Passing this resolution last night undermines the safety and comfort on our campus of members of our Jewish community.” His statement further emphasized that the resolution “undoubtedly [] promotes anti-Semitism. A vote for this resolution is clearly a vote against Israel and an aggression towards the Jewish members of our community.” Indeed, BDS often correlates with a rise in anti-Semitic incidents on campus. Therefore, it is important for university leaders to clearly and forcefully reject this pernicious manifestation of anti-Semitism, as President Kaler did. . In his statement, Interim President Miranda drew attention to “several steps [the university has taken] to improve the environment for Jewish students, staff, and faculty” in response to anti-Semitic incidents on CSU’s campus: . A [Presidential] task force [on Jewish Inclusion and the Prevention of Antisemitism] was charged with making several recommendations, and we have continued the work this year, and started with implementation. A formal unit in our Office for Inclusive Excellence, the Jewish Inclusion Advisory Council, has now been established to continue the work of the task force, and will be a resource for our entire community. We are adding faculty expertise in Jewish Studies to our Department of Ethnic Studies; new courses and curricula are being developed and planned for, pending further investments. We regularly engage with Hillel and Chabad, the Jewish student groups on campus, and we will look for ways to continue to support their activities, including the Holocaust Awareness events later this semester. . Dr. Miranda went on to personally recommend attendance of the school’s Holocaust Awareness event, describing it as, “a powerful remembrance of both tragedy, and triumph.” . Importantly, CSU has also endorsed the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism (the IHRA definition). The IHRA definition is a vital tool in the efforts to combat today’s anti-Semitism. If anti-Semitism is not understood, it cannot be recognized and condemned for what it is. The IHRA definition assists university leaders in raising awareness about the dangers of anti-Semitism and educating their campus communities about the history and continuing impact of this form of bigotry and discrimination. . As leaders of educational institutions, university administrators have an obligation to speak out against hate and bigotry in all forms, including anti-Semitism. As anti-Semitism continues to rise on college campuses and beyond, it is vital for all university administrators to communicate a direct stance of support for their Jewish students. Campus leaders have a responsibility to maintain a safe and inclusive environment for all members of their campus community. . Anti-Semitism not only harms the targeted individuals but also creates a climate of fear and intimidation for the larger Jewish community on campus. The public statements from Presidents Kaler and Miranda help shape the community climate by reinforcing the message that anti-Semitism on campus is incongruent with the university’s values and will not be tolerated. . Speaking out against anti-Semitism is a first step. It is important for all college and university administrators to understand the best practices for combating campus anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism, and to follow-up with structural changes which protect Jewish students on campus. . The Brandeis Center applauds Presidents Kaler and Miranda for their public responses to anti-Semitism and encourages other administrations to follow their lead.
Last month, Arkansas became the 27th U.S. state to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. The IHRA definition is often referred to as the “gold standard” for defining anti-Semitism, because it contains examples of contemporary anti-Semitism involving, including some that involve demonizing, delegitimizing or double standards against Israel. . Virginia’s legislature also voted to adopt the IHRA definition month, including its contemporary examples. VA Governor Youngkin, who signed an executive order adopting the IHRA definition last year, praised the move and announced his intention to sign the bill into law: “Hate has no place in the Commonwealth and I’m proud to take continued steps to fight anti-Semitism. I am truly inspired by the devotion shown to transform what started as an idea into a law that will change how we combat anti-Semitism in the Commonwealth. I want to thank everyone who poured their heart and soul into seeing this bill pass.” . At the moment, there are efforts to have the IHRA definition adopted by state legislatures in New Jersey, Georgia and Indiana. According to the Combat Antisemitism Movement’s (CAM) 2022 IHRA working definition of antisemitism Adoptions and Endorsements Report, 18 U.S. states adopted IHRA via legislation or executive actions in 2022. . Earlier this year, two counties on opposite ends of the U.S. – Westchester, NY, and Snohomish, WA – adopted IHRA. And Costa Rican Foreign Minister Arnoldo Andre Tinoco expressed his government’s intention to “soon adopt the definition of international anti-Semitism.” The IHRA adoption movement passed a major milestone earlier this year when the 1,100th institution adopted the definition. These developments are indicative of the international momentum to define anti-Semitism – a precursor to combating it – as it increases worldwide. . “Successive United States administrations of both political stripes have embraced the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s legally nonbinding working definition of antisemitism, including its examples,” declared Deputy Special Envoy to Combat and Monitor Antisemitism, Aaron Keyak at a recent international event. “We encourage all participating States that have not yet embraced the working definition to do so and to put it into practice.” . The IHRA definition has been adopted or endorsed by more than 1,100 governments, institutions, and organizations – including the U.S. Departments of State, Education, and Justice – as well as the governments of more than 40 countries, the European Union, and the United Nations. The IHRA Definition has been supported by both Republican and Democrat presidential administrations. . “Defining anti-Semitism…is an important [task], not only because definitional clarity is required for the term to be understood, but also because conceptional sophistication is needed for the…problem to be resolved,” writes Brandeis Center Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus in his book, ‘The Definition of Anti-Semitism.’” . “The Louis D. Brandeis Center FAQs About Defining Anti-Semitism” fact sheet offers insight on the importance of defining anti-Semitism, discusses the IHRA Definition, and provides guidance on what further steps are needed to utilize this definition. For example, while the IHRA Definition is not legally binding in and of itself, in the U.S., Executive Order 13899, “makes the IHRA Definition a legally binding part of federal anti-discrimination law, in that federal agencies are required to consider the IHRA Definition in determining whether recipients of federal funds (such as institutions of higher education) are in violation of federal law.” . The IHRA definition provides a clear and widely accepted definition of anti-Semitism, which can help institutions and organizations more effectively identify and combat anti-Semitic behavior. This is especially important for recognizing the many forms anti-Semitism can take. Adopting the IHRA definition sends a message that institutions and organizations take the issue of anti-Semitism seriously and stand in solidarity with the Jewish community. . This tidal wave of support serves as a landmark and reminder that support for the definition transcends the political and ideological spectrums. It is a unified stance against Jewish hate.
Contact: Nicole Rosen 202-309-5724 . Washington, D.C. (February 28, 2023): The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law today submitted an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to protect employee rights to religious observance in Groff v. Dejoy, a case about a U.S. Postal Service (USPS) worker who was forced to resign because his employer refused to accommodate his Sabbath observance. Today marks the deadline for organizations to file amicus briefs in support of the petitioner, and the Court will hear oral arguments on April 18. . The Brandeis Center advises the Court to reverse a 1977 decision that leaves religious employees more susceptible to employment discrimination than any other protected group and poses a particular threat to Jewish Americans. Arguing that the 1977 decision nullifies Title VII’s promise of accommodation for religious employees and that religious workers should enjoy the same protections and accommodations as other workers, the Center urges the Court to eliminate a legal anomaly that shields employers from liability if they disguise anti-Semitic discrimination in facially neutral workplace rules. . The case before the Supreme Court involves religious liberty protections under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Gerald Groff began working for USPS in 2012 but left seven years later when USPS began requiring him to deliver packages for Amazon on Sundays, his Sabbath. After resigning, he sued USPS for religious discrimination. A federal district court and the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of USPS, saying that arranging work schedules to accommodate Groff’s desired time off would place “undue hardship” on the postal agency. The lower courts’ decisions are based on a 1977 Supreme Court decision, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, that, according to the Brandeis Center, dangerously misinterpreted Title VII’s religious accommodation provision and needs immediate fixing, particularly with anti-Semitism on the rise. . Title VII ensures that religious employees do not have to choose between religion and their job unless “undue hardship” is created for the employer. But instead of giving “undue hardship” its plain meaning of significant difficulty or expense, the Hardison Court interpreted the phrase to mean anything that would “bear more than a de minimis cost.” Since that decision, everything from minimal cost to negative impacts on the employer’s operations to objections by the worker’s colleagues have served as sufficient justification for not providing religious accommodation. The Center points out that relying on reactions of other employees to a colleague’s accommodation allows anti-Semitic co-workers to block otherwise reasonable accommodations or even to keep observant Jewish workers out of the workplace altogether. . The Brandeis Center emphasized two main problems with the 1977 ruling. First, the de minimis standard has no grounding in the text of the law and is inconsistent with Congress’ use of the term “undue hardship” in other accommodation statutes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and the Affordable Care Act, and with judicial decisions interpreting identical language in other statutes. For example, under the ADA, an employer may be required to alter the snack break schedule for a diabetic employee because doing so would not pose an undue hardship yet it would be an undue hardship to require an employer to shift a meal break for Muslim employees during Ramadan. Federal law and the courts have consistently interpreted undue hardship to mean significant, rather than de minimis, hardship, leaving Title VII’s religious accommodation provision the odd man out. “In other words, the de minimis standard is not only textually absurd, it effectively ‘single[s] out the religious for disfavored treatment’ – a practice this Court has repeatedly rejected as unconstitutional,” noted the Brandeis Center, citing a 2017 case, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer. . Second, the 1977 decision’s watered-down protection of religious employees harms religious minorities, especially Jewish Americans. As Justice Marshall noted at the time, the decision particularly harms “adherents of minority faiths who do not observe the holy days on which most businesses are closed—Sundays, Christmas, and Easter—but who need time off for their own days of religious observance.” In fact, Congress amended Title VII to require religious accommodations, in part, to specifically protect religious minorities from discrimination on the basis of their religious practice. Yet, the 1977 ruling effectively nullified that amendment and placed religious minorities at a disadvantage because their less-common practices seem more challenging to employers. . Jewish employees, who may have a range of religious needs, such as abstaining from work on the High Holidays, Passover and Shabbat, donning long sleeves and skirts for women, or wearing a beard or yarmulke for men, often bear the brunt of the 1977 decision. Unable to obtain an accommodation because of the Hardison standard, religiously observant individuals find themselves forced to choose between their faith and their employment. In addition, notes the Brandeis Center, the Hardison standard makes it easier to conceal anti-Semitic discrimination. It allows employers to discriminate against observant Jewish employees, while disguising their discrimination in workplace scheduling or attire requirements. And this is all the more concerning, warns the Brandeis Center, given the resurgence of anti-Semitism across the country and the serious rise in anti-Semitic discrimination and violence in the workplace. . Last year, an audit by the Anti-Defamation League found more anti-Semitic incidents in 2021 than in any other year since they began tracking in 1979. That year marked a 14% increase in vandalism, a 43% increase in harassment, and an astonishing 167% increase in assaults against Jewish Americans. . Around two percent of the U.S. population is Jewish, but eight to ten percent of religious discrimination claims the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) receives each year involve discrimination against Jewish employees. And the EEOC has recently acknowledged the “serious rise” in anti-Semitic violence in the workplace. Commissioner Andrea Lucas lamented the “rising tide of hatred” against Jews and noted that “instances of antisemitism in the workplace” often “go ignored, unreported or unaddressed.” The vice chair of the EEOC notes that “the commission has fielded a consistent series of allegations involving anti-Jewish discrimination over the years and she expects there was an uptick in the last two years.” . Recent studies have borne out similar data. A 2022 study conducted by researchers at Rice University, University of Texas Health, and Wheaton College found that “more than half of the Jewish respondents [reported] experience[ing] discrimination at work.” . “Sadly, Hardison’s watered-down protection of religious Americans enables religious discrimination to persist in the workplace, particularly against Jewish employees,” writes the Brandeis Center in its brief. “If affirmed, that decision will further enshrine the second-class protections religious individuals receive under Title VII compared to other protected classes, at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise.” . The Brandeis Center is represented on the brief by Thomas R. MacCarthy and Tiffany H. Bates of Consovoy McCarthy PLLC and the Antonin Scalia Law School Supreme Court Clinic and by Brandeis Center attorneys Kenneth L. Marcus, Alyza D. Lewin, L. Rachel Lerman, and Arthur Traldi. . To view this press release as a PDF, click here. . The Louis D. Brandeis Center is an independent, non-partisan institution for public interest advocacy, research and education. The Center’s mission is to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and to promote justice for all. The Center’s education, research and advocacy focus, among other things, on the resurgent problem of anti-Semitism on college campuses, in the workplace and across the nation. It is not affiliated with the Massachusetts university, the Kentucky law school, or any of the other institutions that share the name and honor the memory of the late U.S. Supreme Court justice.