NJ Court Says Bergen County Rabbi Can't Sue School Over Letter To Parents About 'Conduct'

BERGEN COUNTY, NJ — New Jersey's Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a decision that a Bergen County rabbi cannot sue his former yeshiva for sending a letter to parents telling them he was fired for his conduct with students, according to a case summary.

In May of 2019, according to court documents, a Yeshiva in River Edge called Rosenbaum Yeshiva of North Jersey sent a letter to parents saying that Rabbi Shlomo Hyman had been terminated.

According to the documents, the letter said, "It was determined that Rabbi Hyman's conduct had been neither acceptable nor consistent with how a rebbe in our Yeshiva should interact with students. In consultation with counsel and halachic advisors, the leadership of the Yeshiva has terminated his employment and has determined that no further action is necessary at this time."

Hyman then sued the school for defamation, saying the letter to parents was posted on social media and elsewhere.

The letter was particularly damaging because, according to court documents, the letter and termination were based on the fact that,"In May 2019, Arnold & Porter presented its findings to the Board and Rabbi Daniel Price, Head of RYNJ, including that former fifth and sixth grade female students reported that plaintiff had intentionally touched them and other girls in his classes by massaging girls' shoulders, touching them on clothed parts of the body that he should not have touched, placing stickers on or near their chests, and creating classroom games that caused him to touch them."

A trial court and then an appellate court dismissed Hyman's case against the school, saying “ministerial exception” applied. The exception says the government cannot interfere in certain matters conducted by a religious institution.

Hyman then appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the earlier dismissals.

A group of churches also filed a brief in the case, strengthening the yeshiva's case that religious institutions should not be prevented from taking certain actions against staff members.

Read more about the case here.