The Tel Aviv Magistrate’s Court this week ordered Tel Aviv University to pay compensation in the amount of NIS 30,000 to a kosher student who has been invited to a non-kosher restaurant several times, at events related to academic studies. Judge Aviim Barkai also ordered the university to pay legal expenses and attorney’s fees in the amount of NIS 15,000.
However the judge did not issue, as the plaintiff requested, a blanket restraining order prohibiting the university from holding future events directly related to the university’s activities in non-kosher restaurants. The plaintiff referred to four networking (“networking”) incidents with foreign students from China in non-kosher restaurants, to which he said he was invited by the university when he was a graduate student.
The plaintiff claimed that in practice he was excluded from the events in question, in which Israeli and foreign students participated, due to their existence in non-kosher restaurants – despite his repeated requests to the university. Over a period of time he asked to hold the events, or at least one of them, in a kosher restaurant – but four times it was decided to hold the meetings in non-kosher restaurants, of which three times the students were invited to the same restaurant, called “The Blue Rooster”.
During the discussion, it became clear that the university did not even examine the question of the kosherness of the restaurants, even after the student applied. No staff work, examination or meeting was held at which a decision was made to hold the meals at these restaurants. It was clarified that kosher food is not one of the criteria, that it is not a “factor” and in general that “the food itself is meaningless”.
That is, ostensibly it is not an informed decision of the university which in its considerations has come to the conclusion that all meals should be held in a non-kosher restaurant. The university, which adheres to kosher in all the restaurants on campus, has insisted that this is not an activity associated with it, and that there is no obligation to hold the meals in a kosher restaurant. The university further argued that the plaintiff could have completed his studies even without attending these meetings.
The judge noted in the judgment that while the plaintiff sought to obtain rights to which he was entitled, the university did not hesitate to accuse him of bullying. For example, according to the ruling, the university stated in its opening remarks: “This lawsuit is a bullying, invalid and outrageous attempt to dictate to the university and to all students – including foreign students who fund the networking events out of their own pockets – the personal faith of the plaintiff and the Torah and Labor Trustees movement.” In this context, the judge ruled that “in his appeals as well as in the lawsuit, the plaintiff sought to defend an interest that in his opinion is legitimate. It seems that the plaintiff’s definition as a bully is out of place.”
As for where the events are being held, the university said that the choice of location is made on the basis of material considerations and in accordance with the requirements of the delegations. Considerations include proximity considerations to the hotel where the delegation is staying.
The university further argued that the plaintiff’s choice to restrict himself from eating non-kosher food is similar to preferences such as vegan, vegetarian or other type of kosher. It has been argued that these preferences are a personal matter of one whose order of conscience instructs him to do so, and it is inconceivable that the University is obliged by law to conform to the order of his conscience. In this context, the judge ruled that “it will immediately be said that the defendant thereby ignored the statutory duty to prevent discrimination on the basis of religion, while there is no statutory duty that relates to vegetarianism / veganism or any other preference.”
The university also noted that although it is not its duty, the plaintiff was offered several ways in which he could enjoy the meal at the event, along with attending the meeting, such as a personal vegetarian dish or a fish wrapped in foil – ways kosher students have adopted in the past.
The judge ruled in this regard: “I have given my opinion to the proposal that while all the guests will attend the meal, the plaintiff will eat fish in foil. With all due respect, this proposal does not nullify the discrimination the plaintiff claims. “While all the guests dine at a carefully selected restaurant for the occasion. So in general and especially, when the plaintiff’s application and request on the basis of his religion for kosher food is not so unfounded, certainly not in a country where most of its citizens, Jews like Muslims, are aware of restrictions on eating kosher food.”
Tel Aviv Magistrate’s Court (Photo: Moti Kimhi)The judge ruled that “the request for kosher food is not a culinary preference of the plaintiff’s. The request for kosher food is also not a health preference or another, or the result of eating vegetarian or vegan food. The request for kosher food stems from religious precepts that are not foreign to the Jewish public. And are not foreign to the Muslim public – two audiences that constitute the majority of the public in the State of Israel … In our case, the university ignored the plaintiff’s allegations. In doing so, the university harmed the plaintiff and the kosher public. “This will not diminish its existence.”
However, the judge ruled that “there is no need to issue a blanket restraining order that will prohibit Tel Aviv University from discriminating against its students by holding events of the type described in the lawsuit, as well as any other event directly related to university activities in non-kosher restaurants.” He explained that “a sweeping restraining order that will set future rivets in relation to each and every event of the university, is already an administrative intervention in the university’s discretion in managing its activities … care must be taken not to set an order restricting future and in any case, university activities.” The plaintiff was represented by Adv. Assaf Benmelech, from the legal center of the Torah and Labor Trustees movement.
Tel Aviv University responded: “This is an off-campus activity that is optional and not mandatory. The activity took place as part of events organized by an independent association for delegations from China that it hosts. These events take place at various places of entertainment around the country. The stage of participation in the events was not defined as mandatory, but only as an authority, for those who are interested. “
The plaintiff’s attorney, Adv. Assaf Benmelech, a partner in the firm of Ben Tzur Korb and chairman of the Torah Trustees for Labor movement, said in response that he “welcomes an important court ruling, which ruled that the plaintiff was discriminated against, while the university attacked him. “He had to ask that some of the events held as part of his studies be held in a kosher place. The court today corrected the distortion, and conveyed an extremely important message.”