Bayonne Agrees to $400,000 Settlement of Mosque Suit
The suit claims the city denied a zoning variance for construction of a mosque based on anti-Muslim bias.
February 01, 2018 at 01:33 PM
4 minute read
The city of Bayonne, New Jersey, has agreed to a $400,000 settlement of a suit claiming it denied a zoning variance for construction of a mosque based on anti-Muslim bias.
The signed settlement agreement, filed in U.S. District Court in Newark on Wednesday, calls for the city to pay $120,000 to the plaintiff group, which went under the name of Bayonne Muslims, and $280,000 to the law firm that represented it, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler of New York.
The agreement settles the claim of a Muslim congregation that the city's denial of its variance application to convert a vacant industrial building to a mosque imposed a substantial burden on its religious practice in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. But it's unclear whether the settlement will impact a separate investigation of the city's actions by the U.S. Department of Justice. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office declined to comment on the status of the investigation.
The suit claimed that city officials turned down the group's variance application after a series of public meetings on the application where objectors waved signs saying “Stop the Mosque” and told residents to go back where they came from.
Under terms of the settlement, the city zoning board will hold a hearing to vote on the mosque application no later than 30 days after the settlement's effective date, which was Wednesday. The city can hold only one hearing and must continue until final deliberations and a vote by the zoning board, even if the meeting extends after midnight, the settlement states.
Under the agreement. former U.S. District Judge Joel Pisano was appointed to resolve any future disputes concerning additional approvals to be granted by Bayonne.
The settlement calls for city officials to cooperate with the defendants as they obtain approvals for the mosque and prohibits retaliation against the plaintiffs. The court will retain jurisdiction in the case until a certificate of occupancy is granted.
The attorneys for plaintiff Bayonne Muslims, Adeel Mangi and Muhammad Faridi of Patterson Belknap, said in a statement about the settlement, “American Muslims around the country are standing up for their constitutional rights in the face of discrimination and bigotry and winning. Municipalities that give in to local hatred and treat Muslims unequally should know that they will be held accountable and will face the full weight of the law.”
Abdul Hamid Butt, president of Bayonne Muslims, said in a statement, “We are so grateful for the support of so many of our fellow Bayonne residents through this long struggle and we commend the City of Bayonne for moving now to correct the wrong that was done to Bayonne's Muslims. We are confident our application, considered on its merits, will be approved and we look forward to welcoming Bayonne residents of all faiths to the City's first mosque.”
Bayonne Muslims purchased the property and applied for a zoning variance in 2015. In March 2017, the zoning board denied the mosque application, and two months later the plaintiffs filed their suit in U.S. District Court.
Bayonne is not the first New Jersey municipality to pay the price for denying land use applications for mosques. In 2017, Bernards Township agreed to a $3.25 million settlement over a mosque that was denied approval, and in 2014 Bridgewater agreed to a $5 million settlement for a similar case. The plaintiffs in the Bernards case were also represented by Patterson Belknap's Mangi and Faridi.
The Bayonne city government was represented by Anthony Seijas of Cleary, Giacobbe, Alfieri & Jacobs in Oakland, New Jersey. He did not return a call requesting comment about the settlement.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllVirtua Drug Tests Pregnancy Patients Without Consent, NJ Attorney General Alleges in New Suit
3 minute read'Bewitched by the Technology': $300K to Settle Faulty Facial Recognition
4 minute readDOJ, New Jersey Judiciary Settle Over Language Access Discrimination Allegations, Retaliation Against Court Employee
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250