Fisher v. Congregation B'nai Yitzhok
Pennsylvania Superior Court
110 A.2d 881 (1955)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Rabbi Herman Fisher (plaintiff) was an orthodox Hebrew rabbi. Congregation B’nai Yitzhok (Congregation) (defendant) was an orthodox Hebrew congregation. Fisher contracted with the Congregation to officiate as cantor in the Congregation’s synagogue for six services during the High Holiday Season. Under the Torah and other orthodox Jewish law, men and women are not allowed to sit together during services in the synagogue. This religious custom was not written in the contract. After the contract was signed, the Congregation changed its policy as to men and women sitting together in synagogue, for the first time allowing them to sit together. When Fisher learned of this new policy, he told the Congregation that he would no longer be able to officiate as cantor because the Congregation’s new seating practice would violate his beliefs. Given the late notice he received of the change in seating policy, it was too late for Fisher to obtain other officiating jobs during the Holiday season. Accordingly, Fisher brought suit against the Congregation to recover what he would have received from the contract. At trial, Fisher presented testimony of the Congregation’s rabbi who stated that he told Fisher before the contract was signed that the Congregation followed the segregated seating tradition. The trial court ruled in favor of Fisher. The Congregation appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hirt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.