Rabbis -- Employment

1. Kupperman v. Cong. Nusach Sfard
   

   240 NYS2d 315, 39 Misc2d 107 (1963)

   • Unlike in other denominations, hiring and firing of an Orthodox rabbi is not subject to review by a higher religious body and is, therefore, not an ecclesiastical matter.
   • Decision of Bet Din is not binding because majority of cong. voted not to submit matter to Bet Din.
2. Jewish Center of Sussex County v. Whale
   

   397 A.2d 712, 165 NJ Super 84 (1978)

   • Cong. has right to assume that Rabbi maintains certain moral and ethical standards.
3. Jewish Center of Sussex County v. Whale
   

   411 A.2d 475, 172 NJ Super 165 (1980)

   • Applicant for rabbinical position is no more obligated to provide criminal record if not specifically asked, than is applicant for any other position.
4. Jewish Center of Sussex County v. Whale
   

   432 A.2d 521, 86 NJ 619 (1981)

   • In light of "unique relationship between clergy and congregation," applicant should not have hidden episode which reflected unfavorably on his moral integrity.
5. Zimbler v. Felder
   

   445 NYS2d 366, 111 Misc2d 867 (S.Ct. Queens County, 1981)

   • To say that a rabbi is merely an employee of the congregation as the court did in "Kupperman" is incorrect.
6. Blitz v. Beth Isaac Adas Israel Congregation
   

   694 A.2d 107 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997)

   • Affirming in part and reversing in part Circuit Court decision entering judgment by Beth Din in favor of Rabbi in employment dispute with his synagogue; noting, among other things, that Maryland courts recognize validity of arbitration proceedings of a Beth Din even when the proceeding is not in strict compliance with Maryland's Uniform Arbitration Act, as long as parties knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the Beth Din proceeding.
7. Goodman v. Temple Shir Ami, Inc.
   

   712 So. 2d 775 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998), No. 97-1477. Dated June 3, 1998, rehearing denied July 29, 1998. Opinion by J. Fletcher.

   • Action by Rabbi against Temple and board member for breach of contract, defamation and interference with advantageous business relationship stemming from discharge as spiritual leader; court had no jurisdiction of claims, except for claim for payment of services rendered prior to termination of relationship with the Temple.

Copyright © 1997-2008 by Ira Kasdan. All rights reserved.
DISCLAIMER