In New York, finding affordable housing for an entire family is already difficult enough. For the Katz family, they were able to find affordable housing that could accommodate their family of seven (two adults and five children). The Katz family entered a lottery that randomly chose residents that would be allowed to live in newer apartment houses also referred to as Site 5. The limit to residents in a single apartment was six and when the Katz family entered the lottery they stated they had 6 family members who would be living in the apartment. They stated this because their eldest son was soon moving out to live in a dormitory. The Katz family was chosen from the lottery but later denied their housing because their family of seven exceeded the limit of six residents per apartment. Being members of the Orthodox Jewish community, the Katz stated that having many children is an obligation and a blessing from God therefore this refusal to allow the Katz family to live in Site 5 is a violation of their First Amendment rights.
Having a large family is a major part of Jewish faith, “Although a person has filled the mitzvah of being fruitful and multiplying, he is bound by a rabannic commandment not to refrain from being fruitful and multiplying as long as he is physically potent. For anyone who adds a soul to the Jewish people is considered as if he built an entire world” (Rambam, Hilchot Ishut, 15:16). The Katz family argues that because of their beliefs they were denied affordable housing that would have easily been able to accommodate their entire family.
This case raises the issue on whether the city’s public housing rules that limit the size of families that are allowed to live in the apartments are rules that discriminate against Orthodox Jewish families. The Katz do have valid grounds for filing this lawsuit, since the average Orthodox Jewish family has 4.1 children in it. Adding two parents into the mix, the average family would exceed the city's public housing limit of six residents. The Katz family stated that this policy violated federal anti-discrimination laws as well as their First Amendment Rights.
In this case we are looking at whether the city’s public housing rules discriminate against Orthodox Jewish Families in a way that puts them at an immediate disadvantage when it comes to finding affordable public housing. I do think that this policy does discriminate against Orthodox Jewish Families. The reason I say this is because these apartments that were put into the lottery and offered to families do have enough space to accommodate a family of seven. It was stated in the article that a family of seven would fit well within the guidelines of the smallest three room apartment that Site 5 offered. Meaning there would be more than enough space for seven people to live in a given apartment. Mr. Katz did recognize the fact that this was not the first time his family has been denied a living space because of the size of his family. Even when he puts onto paperwork that his children would be sharing rooms, his family still gets rejected from certain living spaces. In this situation it seems as if the apartments that they rightfully won in the lottery, had ample space to fit all seven of them even if their oldest son was not going to be leaving soon. The New York City Division of Human Rights (DHR) examined the grounds as to which Site 5 was using to reject the Katz’s family. They found that site 5 failed to justify their reasoning behind the limit of six residents per apartment. Site 5’s rules were more strict than the local code, so they needed to provide valid reasons as to why six residents should be the limit, and they were unable to. The DHR found that this brand new apartment complex had adequate water, sewer, and electrical service to accommodate more than six residents to each apartment. These are all reasons as to why I agree with the conclusion that the DHR came to and that the limit of six residents in an apartment does lead to an immediate disadvantage for an Orthodox Jewish Family.
6 comments:
While the site could accommodate for more people in their housing sites, I do not think that denying the Katz family living accommodations is a violation of their religious rights because it is not a substantial burden. If the housing sites have the resources to allow more people to live in the homes, they could expand the numbers to all the houses. However, this law is generally applicable and in no way directly targeting religion.
The housing restriction does not violate the religious rights of the Katz family. The Katz family claims that the regulation burdens their religious exercise by limiting the apartments to 6 family members. However, it seems difficult to argue that the law is anything but neutral. While Orthodox Jewish people typically have large families, so do many other groups of people. The regulation is neutral and has an indirect burden on the family. As long as the site has a compelling secular interest to limit the space to six people the incidental burden on the Katz family is justified. Altogether, I find it hard to link the housing regulation with a burden on free exercise due to its neutrality. Also, the housing provider initially approved the Orthodox family and only denied them when they found that Mr. Katz misstated family's size. Clearly, there was no religious animosity involved.
I do not think that Katz family is discriminated against based upon their religious belief. When the Katz entered into the lottery they listed that there would only be six individuals living in the apartment so when they were lucky enough to have won to the lottery, as you have a 1 in 562 chance of winning, the family was placed in an apartment that could accommodate the amount of people they had listed. When the state found out there would be seven people living in the house they lost the housing they had won because they exceed the amount for the apartment, even though the apartment could accommodate seven people living there the state is able to limit the amount of people for whatever reason. The deny was not because of religious beliefs it was simply because of the amount of people in the home; the revocation does place a burden on the Katz family but it does not place a burden on them expressing their religion. Additionally, I think that if the Katz's family had listed that seven individuals would be living in the home when they submitted their application, and they still would have won, they would have been placed in a home that accommodates every member of the family. From my research the New York City housing lottery accommodates families with up to seven individuals.
I am going to disagree here and say that the Katz family is not being discriminated against based upon their religious beliefs. The intent of denying the family the apartment is predominantly secular, given the number of family members that they want to bring there and the rules and regulations the owners have set for these apparent style homes. Even if having a large family is part of one's religious beliefs, the denial of the apartment was not because of their religion. A family of any other religion or there lack of may also have been denied access simply do to the sizing along with rules and regulations.
I agree with many of the other comments stated that this doesn't necessarily violate the rights of the Katz family. The most common approach would be evaluating the law as it is facially neutral however this may not be neutral in practice. This law accommodated up to six people and Orthodox Jewish individuals typically have larger families. However, as the author stated the average family size of an Orthodox Jewish family is 4.1 children which including parents is approximately 6 people. These details matter and I think they fail to demonstrate a substantial burden on the free exercise of the Katz family. The neutrality of laws can often still have a disparate impact on certain groups however one cannot expect the state to be fully accommodating.
I don't believe that denying the Katz family housing burdens their religious practices. As without the housing, they could still uphold their duties to have more children. It's hard for me to see this as a burden against their religion as the rule is neutral to any and all families that have a certain amount of children. I also wonder why the site only allows six residents additionally. I don't believe it is a burden on their religion but I do believe that they should be able to live in the residency.
Post a Comment