Settlement of an important civil rights lawsuit involving religious freedom was announced December 17, 2012.

This settlement affects the civil rights of rabbis and other Pennsylvania religious leaders. It also guarantees religious freedom for Pennsylvania religious leaders of any denomination or sect who perform ceremonies, customs, religious rites or practices. Such individuals are now excluded from the definition of “funeral director.”

Stephen Pincus represented Rabbi Daniel Wasserman, the Rabbi of Shaare Torah Congregation in Pittsburgh. After the Rabbi conducted a religious burial in 2009, a commercial funeral director accused him of breaking state law.

The funeral director reported the Rabbi to the State Board of Funeral Directors, opening an investigation by the Pennsylvania Bureau of Enforcement and Investigation. The Rabbi was investigated for 28 months for “practicing as a funeral director without a license.”

In August 2012, the Rabbi filed suit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in federal court in Harrisburg. This civil rights lawsuit claimed that the Rabbi’s religious freedom and rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as under Article 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, had been violated.

The settlement provides that all religious leaders and their congregations in Pennsylvania are relieved of the definition of “funeral director.” The State Board of Funeral Directors must begin new enforcement procedures and the Pennsylvania Board of Professional and Occupational Affairs must train its attorneys, paralegals and investigators to make certain that the civil rights of individuals who perform religious burials are not violated.

“This settlement will have the important consequence of lifting the threat of investigation that has hung over the heads of Pennsylvania religious leaders of all faiths,” said Mr. Pincus. “This was a matter worth pursuing, not simply on the Rabbi’s behalf, but on behalf of the members of every temple, meeting, mosque or other religious congregations who are entitled to be buried as their religions dictate.”

Two news articles related to this civil rights settlement appear below:

Clergy to be Allowed to Conduct Funerals

Squirrel Hill Rabbi Declares Important Victory for Religious Freedom

PA Funeral Director Law Changes Following Civil Rights Settlement (Wasserman v. Burrell, et al.)

PA Funeral Director Law changes have been made due to the civil rights settlement by Pittsburgh Rabbi Wasserman in his “Funeral Director” interpretation case against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This important civil rights settlement secures religious freedom for rabbis and other religious leaders.

In August 2012, the Rabbi’s legal team filed suit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Complaint alleged that the Rabbi’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, as well as Article 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, had been violated.

The Memorandum of Understanding of this civil rights settlement excludes all individuals who perform religious rites, sects, and any committee of a church, mosque, synagogue or temple from the definition of “funeral director” under Pennsylvania law. Rabbi Wasserman and leaders of all other religious faiths can now conduct funeral services in Pennsylvania. The State Board of Funeral Directors must begin new enforcement procedures to ensure that the civil rights of individuals who perform religious burials are not violated.

Documents related to this civil rights case may be reviewed here:

2012-12-17 Wasserman press release.

Memorandum of Understanding.

Stipulation.

Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC was appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel in a food mislabeling case representing a proposed nationwide class of persons who purchased Kashi products claiming to be “All Natural” or containing “Nothing Artificial.”
 
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District court for the Southern District of California, alleges that since at least 2007 Kashi clearly labeled its products as being “All Natural” or containing “Nothing Artificial,” cultivating a wholesome and healthful image in an effort to promote sales, yet federal regulations identify a number of those ingredients as synthetic or as otherwise not existing in nature.
 
In its July 16, 2012 Order sustaining the plaintiffs’ consumer fraud claims, the District Court noted the plaintiffs’ allegations “that reasonable consumers understand ‘All Natural’ and ‘Nothing Artificial’ to mean that no synthetic or artificial ingredients are included, that reasonable consumers lack the means to verify the truthfulness of those claims, and that, after relying on the labels, a reasonable consumer would not expect any artificial or synthetic ingredients in Kashi Company’s products.”
 
Similarly, in sustaining the plaintiffs’ breach of warranty claims, the District Court noted the Complaint’s allegations that Kashi’s “All Natural” and “Nothing Artificial” claims “are not puffery and constitute affirmations of fact made by [Kashi],” and that these statements “became part of the basis of the bargain because one of the statements was on every product label and appeared in numerous advertisements, that Plaintiffs purchased the products believing that they conformed to the statements, [and] that [Kashi] breached the warranties by failing to supply the products that were free of synthetic or artificial ingredients.”
 
The Complaint asserts claims on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers who purchased Kashi’s “All Natural” and “Nothing Artificial” products, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief to stop Kashi from labeling its products as “All Natural” and “Nothing Artificial” when they contain artificial and/or synthetic ingredients, and to recover damages and/or restitution for any wrongful conduct.
 
For more information, please contact Attorney Joe Kravec.
 
To review additional cases regarding foods labeled as “All Natural” or “100% Natural” click here:  Trader Joe’s

Food Mislabeling – Trader Joe’s
 
Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC represents a proposed nationwide class of consumers in a food mislabeling case who purchased Trader Joe’s food products that it marketed as “All Natural” or “100% Natural.”
 
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that since October 24, 2007, Trader Joe’s labeled various products as being “All Natural” or “100% Natural,” yet federal regulations identify a number of those ingredients as synthetic or otherwise not existing in nature.
 
As noted by the Court in its June 14, 2012 Order partially rejecting Trader Joe’s Motion to Dismiss, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that Trader Joe’s products were mislabeled because “each of these products contains one or more [] synthetic ingredients” as defined by the FDA, and “that Trader Joe’s profited unfairly by marketing and selling these ‘All Natural’ products to health-conscious consumers at a premium.” 
 
Based on these allegations, the Second Amended Complaint seeks to enjoin Trader Joe’s from labeling its products “All Natural” or “100% Natural” when they contain non-natural ingredients, and to recover damages and/or restitution for any wrongful conduct.
 
Please contact Attorney Joe Kravec for further information.