Representative Matters

AL MADANY ISLAMIC CENTER OF NORWALK, INC. V. CITY OF NORWALK, CONN. ALBANIAN ASSOCIATED FUND V. TOWNSHIP OF WAYNE, N.J. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE V. PRISON FELLOWSHIP MINISTRIES BENSALEM MASJID V. BENSALEM TOWNSHIP, PA BERKOWITZ V. EAST RAMAPO CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, N.Y. BETHEL WORLD OUTREACH MINISTRIES V. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD. BIKUR CHOLIM, INC. V. VILLAGE OF SUFFERN, N.Y. BUDDHIST EDUCATION CENTER OF AMERICA, INC., V. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. CHABAD JEWISH CENTER OF TOMS RIVER V. TOWNSHIP OF TOMS RIVER, N.J. CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY CHAPEL WESLEYAN CHURCH V. TOWNSHIP OF HILLSBOROUGH CONAWAY V. DEANE CONGREGATION HEICHEL DOVID CONGREGATION KOLLEL V. TOWNSHIP OF HOWELL, N.J. CONGREGATION MISCHKNOIS LAVIER YAKOV V. BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE VILLAGE OF AIRMONT, N.Y. CONGREGATION RABBINICAL COLLEGE OF TARTIKOV V. VILLAGE OF POMONA, N.Y. DAYALBAGH RADHASOAMI SATSANG ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA V. TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE, N.J. EAGLE COVE CAMP & CONFERENCE CENTER V. TOWN OF WOODBORO, WISC. FAITH TEMPLE CHURCH V. TOWN OF BRIGHTON, N.Y. FIRST PENTECOSTAL UNITED HOLY CHURCH V. CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA FISHERMEN OF MEN CHURCH, APPLICATION OF, D.C. GREAT LAKES SOCIETY V. GEORGETOWN TOWNSHIP, MICH. GREENWICH REFORM SYNAGOGUE V. TOWN OF GREENWICH, CONN. HARBOR MISSIONARY CHURCH V. CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA, CAL. HINDU TEMPLE AND CULTURAL SOCIETY OF USA V. BRIDGEWATER TOWNSHIP, N.J. MOXLEY V. TOWN OF WALKERSVILLE, MD. NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR AMISH RELIGIOUS FREEDOM NAVAJO NATION V. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE NEW BEGINNINGS CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP V. TOWNSHIP OF BRICK PARAMESWARAN V. MYSOREKAR RIVERDALE BAPTIST CHURCH V. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD. ROCKY MOUNTAIN CHRISTIAN CHURCH V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BOULDER COUNTY SAHANSRA V. WESTCHESTER COUNTY HEALTH CARE CORPORATION SPIRIT OF ALOHA TEMPLE V. COUNTY OF MAUI ST. JOHN UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST V. INDIANAPOLIS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, IND. ST. JOHN´S UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST V. CITY OF CHICAGO THIRD CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD TROTMAN V. BEN GILMAN SPRING VALLEY MEDICAL AND DENTAL CLINIC YESHIVA GEDOLA NA'OS YAAKOV V. OCEAN TWP., N.J.

Parameswaran v. Mysorekar

09/22/2006: Federal court rules for Temple in overtime pay case, dismisses lawsuit

On September 22, 2006, federal judge Joseph Bianco dismissed a lawsuit brought by a religious employee of S&G client Hindu Temple Society of North America for various alleged labor violations. The court held:

"this Article III requirement is not met, then, no matter how interesting or significant the legal issue presented, the Court has no jurisdiction and is not permitted to proceed with the case."

Parameswaran v. Mysorekar, No. 05-CV-3162 (E.D.N.Y. 2006).

04/18/2006: "God's Work"

Religious groups are more likely to run into problems when they look before they leap, says Roman Storzer, a Washington, D.C., lawyer who represents religious institutions. "Churches are not as sophisticated as commercial entities," he says. "They're used to preaching to the community, not doing taxes and payroll." He recently represented a Hindu temple in Flushing, N.Y., which set up a canteen to serve food to worshippers. Last summer, a worker at the canteen sued the temple for overtime wages. While the worker ultimately withdrew the suit, it's an example of the obstacles that might come with the territory, he says.

Colleen DeBaise, SmartMoney. Read the story here.

07/28/2005: S&G represents Hindu Temple against religious employee lawsuit

As the lawsuit itself describes, the religious cooks prepare naivedyam (cooked offerings) for daily rituals as well as special prasadams for Hindu festivals. These are all part of non-profit religious activity that has a much different character than frying up burgers at McDonalds.

The Temple will defend itself in this matter. These protections are especially important where minority religions, such as Hinduism in the United States, are concerned. We cannot always count on government bureaucrats making the right decisions for activities that they may not well understand.

Religion and America, Letter to the Editor, The Indian Express (Aug. 5, 2005).

"We believe that it's going to be thrown out very quickly," said Roman Storzer, a lawyer that is representing the temple. Storzer added that the labor laws cited in the lawsuit cover commercial, not religious workers. "It's not a restaurant. Nobody comes in off the street who's not worshipping there," Storzer said.

New Lawsuit Alleges Temple Mistreated Cooks and Priests, Queens Chronicle (July 28, 2005).