The answer is critical. A San Mateo County Superior Court judge ruled without a trial last June that the state law banning discrimination in businesses did not apply to this case because Beth El is not a business.
But in an appeal filed last month, the attorney for Leslie Mednick, a 14-year-old girl with autism, argues that Beth El’s activities are similar to those of a business. As a result, attorney Michael Sorgen maintains, the anti-discrimination law known as the Unruh Civil Rights Act does apply to the San Mateo synagogue.
Sorgen said Beth El offers programs and activities to the public for a fee such as lectures, concerts, classes and day care.
“There is nothing in the language or history of the Unruh Act to suggest that an establishment associated with some religious denomination, which nonetheless is operated and interfaces with the public like any other non-profit business, should merit such an exemption,” according to Sorgen’s appellate brief.
David Finkelstein, the synagogue’s spokesman for the lawsuit, rejects the argument, saying these activities are primarily offered for temple members. From the beginning, synagogue officials have also denied that any discrimination occurred.
“It doesn’t make any sense to me. If we were operating a factory, that would be a different story,” said Finkelstein, Beth El’s immediate past president and now an executive board member. “We don’t make any profits off this. We operate at a deficit. If we didn’t have these auxiliary matters, we’d have to close the doors.”
The case originated more than two years ago.
In November 1994, Shelley and Barry Mednick joined Beth El and enrolled Leslie in the religious school.
The girl, who is now an eighth-grader, has a mild form of autism and dyslexia.
She is also developmentally delayed; her physical growth and ability to process information are stunted.
Though she requires an aide, Leslie has long been mainstreamed into regular classes in public school.
According to the original lawsuit, Beth El officials treated Leslie with hostility from the start and forced the family to sign a “punitive” set of stipulations regarding her behavior in class.
The San Mateo family left the synagogue in April 1995 after an incident during a religious-school recess when Leslie got caught in the middle of horseplay between other students. She got powdered with chalk dust and sprayed with Lysol.
Synagogue officials faulted the family for hiring a 12-year-old boy as an aide, who they say couldn’t provide proper supervision for Leslie. Her parents claimed that synagogue staff neglected their duties and then blamed Leslie for the problems.
In September 1995, the family filed the lawsuit and claimed the synagogue discriminated against Leslie based on the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The family has since joined Burlingame’s Peninsula Temple Sholom. Leslie celebrated her bat mitzvah there a year ago and continues to take religious school classes.
The lawsuit, which sought unspecified damages, also alleged breach of contract, invasion of privacy and defamation. In the appeal, the Mednicks have dropped all allegations except for the discrimination charge.
Finkelstein asserts that the court will side with the synagogue.
“Traditionally, religious establishments aren’t considered businesses,” he said. “If we were found to be a business — that would mean every church and synagogue. It would wipe out distinctions. It would be sort of ridiculous.”
He also warned of the problem of applying the Unruh Act, which also prohibits religious discrimination, to a religious organization.
“You couldn’t ask a Sunday school teacher if she was Jewish,” he said.
But Sorgen said that applying an anti-discrimination law in this case wouldn’t conflict with First Amendment religious freedom.
One cannot sue the Catholic Church for excluding women from the priesthood or an Orthodox synagogue for separating men and women during services, he said.
“But what reason is there in Judaism to discriminate against a girl who is autistic?” he said.
If the family wins in the state Court of Appeal, the case will return to Superior Court for trial. If the family loses the appeal, Shelley Mednick said she’s willing to go to the state Supreme Court for her daughter.
“It’s wrong for a temple to have the right to discriminate. It’s against Jewish ethics and Jewish law,” she said. “I’m an idealist…I’ll fight for her.”