Lawsuit Update In Chabad of Litchfield Action

LITCHFIELD, CT — In actions last week and earlier this week, the plaintiffs in a Jewish group’s lawsuit claiming an anti-Hasidic bias in Litchfield filed an amended complaint to add a defendant and the town of Litchfield filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit-at least with regard to the municipality.

The first filing, dated Sept. 23, has Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County Inc. and Rabbi Joseph Eisenbach adding to the list of defendants the Borough of Litchfield. The borough is a square-mile district in the center of town that has its own governing agency, the Board of Warden and Burgesses, and levies a borough tax for such things as street lights and upkeep of the green. In its amended complaint, Chabad refers to the “Historic District Commission of the Borough of Litchfield,” tying the two entities together.

In the initial lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in September, Chabad and Rabbi Eisenbach named as defendants the Historic District Commission, the town and 10 unnamed individuals. The suit concerns Chabad’s rejected attempt to expand and transform property at 85 West Street-located in the borough and historic district-into a new headquarters that would include a temple.

The plaintiffs claim in the suit, prepared by attorney Kenneth R. Slater of Halloran & Sage LLP in Hartford, that the actions of the defendants in blocking Chabad’s plans represent violations of the Jewish group’s civil rights, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) and state statutes.

On Tuesday, attorney James K. Robertson Jr. of Carmody & Torrance LLP in Waterbury filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of the town. The motion argues that the Historic District Commission is not a town entity, that the municipal government has no authority over land-use rules of the Borough of Litchfield and, essentially, that the town had no role in reviewing, commenting upon or acting upon the Chabad’s plans.

That motion to dismiss begins by saying, “Groundless claims of a ‘pattern of religious discrimination aimed at Jewish people’ and ‘anti-Hasidic bias’ can cause irreparable harm to innocent individuals and, indeed, to the very fabric of a community. In a complaint against any citizen or any group of citizens that lays out the very gravest allegations of invidious discrimination (be they named individually or as an entire town or both), plaintiffs’ counsel has, therefore, the very highest duty to verify all factual allegations set forth. Regrettably, that was not done in this instance.”

Reached by phone Wednesday, Mr. Slater said, “I haven’t reviewed the details of the motion. It was filed with only respect of the town of Litchfield and is not on behalf of the Historic District Commission and the Borough of Litchfield.”

Regarding the amended complaint, Mr. Slater said that the only change is a clarification that the borough is a defendant.

In the suit, Chabad and Rabbi Eisenbach allege on the part of the defendants “a pattern of religious discrimination directed at the Jewish people … based in large part on anti-Hasidic animus … .”

One part of the complaint reads, “ … Defendants have made statements disparaging Plaintiffs’ religious uses. Defendants have repeatedly used administrative means to prevent Plaintiffs and the Jewish community from utilizing the Property. This targeting is the direct result of the Defendants’ opposition to the Plaintiffs’ religious sect.”

“The Defendants’ actions, all of which took place under color of state law, are and should be declared unlawful, and should be permanently enjoined,” the lawsuit goes on to say. The suit asks the court to issue a declaratory judgment, permanent injunctive relief and damages-as well as the appointment of a federal monitor to ensure that the defendants comply with orders of the court.

In terms of the 10 unnamed defendants, the lawsuit says, “Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true and complete names of some Defendants sued herein, including those officers listed as Does 1 through 10, and for that reason have sued them by their fictitious names. … Plaintiffs allege that each of these … Defendants is responsible for some or all of the acts alleged herein … .”

In late 2007, the Historic District Commission denied an application to relocate Chabad’s headquarters from Village Green Drive to the former home of the Wilderness Shop in Litchfield center. The commission based its denial on the scale of the proposed expansion and restoration of the 135-year-old building.

The commission’s motion for denial stated that the plan would overwhelm the town’s historic district. It proposed a compromise to allow a doubling of the original square footage of the building and said it would consider a plan totaling about 5,000 square feet.