Court: Electric Sewer Pump Does Not Infringe on Amish Couple's Religious Freedom
The Commonwealth Court has ruled that connecting an Amish couple's property to a municipal sewer system using an electric pump does not violate the couple's religious freedom.
January 10, 2018 at 04:56 PM
3 minute read
The Commonwealth Court has ruled that connecting an Amish couple's property to a municipal sewer system using an electric pump does not violate the couple's religious freedom.
A split three-judge Commonwealth Court panel consisting of Judge Robert Simpson and Senior Judge Dan Pellegrini affirmed a Warren County trial court's denial of the injunction requested by Joseph and Barbara Yoder. The Yoders asked the court to rule that they need not be required to connect to the sewer authority system through electric means. Judge Patricia A. McCullough filed a dissent.
The Yoders are Old Order Amish, meaning they eschew technology like automobiles and electricity. Currently the Yoders use an outhouse devoid of both running water and electricity at their Sugar Grove Township home, according to Simpson's majority opinion.
The plaintiffs have been involved in two separate litigations over the sewer issue, including a class action over the constitutionality of the township's mandatory connection ordinance, which provides that any property abutting Sugar Grove Area Sewer Authority pipes shall connect to the system. That class action was dismissed.
In the current case, the dispute centered on the means of connection: the electric pump. The trial court “weighed that moderate harm against the risk of using untested means of connection, noting the risk of malfunction of part of the sewer system posed a serious threat to public health,” and held that the Yoders did not offer any viable non-electric alternatives, according to Simpson's opinion. The Yoders argued the trial court inappropriately placed the burden on them to find the least intrusive means of connection.
“Based on the record, the trial court determined owners did not meet all of the prerequisites for relief. Owners did not establish the injunction would not harm the public, or that the harm in denying the injunction outweighed the harm in granting it,” Simpson said.
“We defer to the trial court's findings as to weighing the harms and the adverse effect of an injunction on the public health,” he continued. “After several years of litigation on multiple fronts, we recognize a strong interest in accomplishing the mandatory connection without further delay. Because there are apparently reasonable grounds for the trial court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief, we affirm.”
In her dissent, McCullough said, “By denying owners' preliminary injunction and so ordering them to connect to the authority's system through the grinder pump, the trial court has ignored the import of the religious freedom protections owners are afforded and violated the intent of this court's remand opinion that the authority employ the least intrusive means of connection, accounting for owners' religious beliefs.”
Warren-based Bernard J. Hessley represents the Yoders and the Yoder Family Trust. Hessley said the majority's ruling was wrong.
“I think it was a bad decision; the dissent is correct. In my view the trial court misapplied the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act by placing the burden on the Yoders to establish what was the least restrictive means to achieve the ends of the so-called public interest in protecting the environment from pollution,” Hessley said.
Hessley said he was preparing an appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Andrea L. Stapleford of Stapleford & Byham in Warren represents the sewer authority and did not return a call seeking comment.
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
© 2025 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 AllSuperior Court Directs Western Pa. Judge to Recuse From Case Over Business Ties to Defendant
3 minute readSeven Rules of the Road for Managing Referrals To/From Other Attorneys, Part 2
6 minute readLitigating the Written Word: Parol Evidence Rule and the Gist of the Action Doctrine in Fraud Claims
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1US DOJ Threatens to Prosecute Local Officials Who Don't Aid Immigration Enforcement
- 2Kirkland Is Entering a New Market. Will Its Rates Get a Warm Welcome?
- 3African Law Firm Investigated Over ‘AI-Generated’ Case References
- 4Gen AI and Associate Legal Writing: Davis Wright Tremaine's New Training Model
- 5Departing Attorneys Sue Their Former Law Firm
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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