Federal Judge Greenlights Antisemitism Lawsuit Against Influential New York Legal Union

By: Fern Sidman

In a significant legal development closely followed by Jewish advocacy groups and labor organizations alike, a federal judge in New York ruled on Tuesday that a landmark antisemitism lawsuit against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys (ALAA) can proceed, rejecting a motion to dismiss filed by the union’s legal team. The ruling, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, was hailed by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law as a crucial affirmation of labor rights and protections against antisemitism.

As reported on Thursday in The Algemeiner, the Brandeis Center, which is representing the plaintiffs in this case, praised the court’s decision as a victory for those seeking to challenge what they allege is a deeply ingrained culture of antisemitism within the ALAA. “We are enormously gratified with this ruling vindicating our clients’ federal labor law rights to oppose antisemitism in their union, including their right to sue over a virulently anti-Israel resolution proposed just weeks after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack,” said Kenneth Marcus, founder and chairman of the Brandeis Center.

The case has drawn widespread attention due to the nature of the allegations against the ALAA, a prominent union representing New York’s public defenders and legal aid attorneys. According to the information provided in The Algemeiner report, the union’s leadership and some of its members are accused of fostering an environment hostile to Jewish members, particularly in the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas terror attacks against Israel.

As previously documented by The Algemeiner, the conflict within the ALAA escalated dramatically after the union passed a resolution condemning Israel with only a cursory mention of Hamas’s atrocities. The complaint alleges that this resolution, which surfaced mere weeks after Hamas launched its unprecedented assault on southern Israel, became a flashpoint within the union, unleashing a torrent of hostility toward Jewish and pro-Israel members.

The resolution not only advanced anti-Israel rhetoric but also triggered internal disciplinary actions against Jewish members who spoke out against it. According to court filings, the ALAA facilitated formal charges seeking to expel these members from the union, citing their opposition to what they believed was an antisemitic agenda.

Rory Lancman, senior counsel for the Brandeis Center, highlighted the personal and professional toll endured by the Jewish attorneys involved. “In standing up for what is right, these courageous legal aid lawyers faced expulsion and a campaign of demonization that has taken an enormous toll on them, both professionally and personally,” Lancman stated. “We look forward to proceeding with this case and fully vindicating their rights under federal labor law.”

Passed in the volatile weeks following the October 7 Hamas attacks, the resolution condemned Israel in stark terms, accusing the Jewish state of perpetrating atrocities while making only a fleeting reference to the mass killing, rape, and kidnapping of Israeli civilians by Hamas.

The resolution, according to the information contained in The Algemeiner report, prompted fierce opposition from Jewish union members, who argued that it constituted a “1,147-word diatribe against the existence of the Jewish state,” rife with inflammatory rhetoric and historically charged accusations reminiscent of classical antisemitic blood libels. The dissenters claimed that such actions not only alienated Jewish attorneys but also undermined the professional integrity of the union.

One of the most alarming aspects of the complaint was the assertion that the ALAA’s leadership enabled or tolerated a hostile atmosphere in which antisemitic sentiments were openly expressed. The lawsuit cites specific instances where union members allegedly celebrated Hamas’s actions, chanted slogans such as “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” and denied that Hamas had murdered women and children during its assault on Israel.

In one particularly egregious example, ALAA member Marlen Bodden sent an officewide email on November 16, 2023, insinuating that Jewish attorneys’ support for Israel would lead them to collude with prosecutors against Muslim, Palestinian, and Arab clients. “If they support Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people, why would they not have a reason to collude with prosecutors and other adversaries to deprive our clients of justice in the courts,” Bodden wrote. Monica Dula, another member, replied affirmatively: “It is a legitimate question.”

Despite attempts by a ranking ALAA official to defuse the conversation, similar remarks reportedly continued to circulate among union members. On October 13, 2023, member Saara Ashid suggested in a message cited by The Algemeiner that Jewish attorneys might not “stand up for Black and Brown folk in the same way,” further stoking fears among Jewish members about the erosion of collegial trust within the organization.

Faced with what they saw as an attack on their professional integrity and religious identity, several Jewish ALAA members sought judicial relief. They obtained a temporary restraining order halting a scheduled vote on the anti-Israel resolution, citing breach of contract and alleging that the union’s hostile environment discouraged Jewish attorneys from participating fully in union activities or from seeking legal counsel from ALAA-affiliated lawyers.

The reaction from other union members was swift and vitriolic. Jewish members who had sought the court’s protection faced accusations of “snitching,” with some colleagues reportedly suggesting violent retribution. In email threads cited in The Algemeiner report, union member Emmanuel Garcia wrote, “if you are a snitch please do us a favor and kill yourself,” while David Tobias remarked, “careful, snitches are in this thread, they might snitch on you and air strike your home with your family in it.”

Rather than de-escalating the situation, the ALAA leadership allegedly moved forward with formal disciplinary charges against the Jewish members. The union accused them of disrupting a “democratic process on an internal union matter” and violating the ALAA’s “core” mission. Despite the temporary restraining order, the anti-Israel resolution was ultimately passed, and disciplinary trials against the Jewish members are reportedly pending.

The case raises significant questions about the intersection of labor rights, freedom of expression, and protections against religious discrimination within union environments. The allegations against the ALAA have reverberated beyond New York’s legal community, sparking debate among labor rights advocates, Jewish organizations, and policymakers.

The Algemeiner report indicated that this lawsuit is seen by many within the Jewish community as a test case for how American labor law will address claims of antisemitism intertwined with political activism in the workplace. The Brandeis Center’s involvement, as reported by The Algemeiner, reflects a strategic effort to challenge what it views as the normalization of antisemitism within professional associations under the guise of political discourse.

While the ALAA has defended its actions as part of its democratic processes, the federal judge’s decision to allow the case to move forward signals a potential reckoning for the union’s leadership. The ruling affirms that union members retain the right to seek legal recourse when they believe their rights have been infringed — particularly when it involves accusations of discrimination and harassment.

As the case progresses, it is likely to attract increasing scrutiny from both legal analysts and advocacy groups concerned with the rise of antisemitism in American institutions. This lawsuit stands at the crossroads of vital national conversations about workplace rights, antisemitism, and the boundaries of political expression within organized labor.

For now, the federal court’s refusal to dismiss the suit marks a pivotal moment in the legal battle, one that could set important precedents for how unions are held accountable when accusations of systemic discrimination arise.