This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The complaint alleged that in February 2016, D and his wife, Othilia Greda, owned a seventeen-unit apartment building. Farghaly and a male friend, Deyab Elashkar met with D at the building because Farghaly sought to lease an apartment D advertised was available. Farghaly wore a khimar, which is 'a head covering or head scarf worn by some Muslim women.' D asked Farghaly, '[a]re you Muslim[,]' and, when she responded affirmatively, defendant 'stated, 'I don't rent to Muslims,' and asked [Farghaly] and [Elashkar] to leave.' Farghaly and Elashkar left the building without seeing the apartment. Farghaly reported what occurred to the Elizabeth police, and the next day, she reported it to the Division. Division set up D with two different shills. In the investigation, D told the Division that when he told Farghaly five people could not live in the apartment, Elashkar punched and threatened to kill him. D also claimed there were past and present Muslim tenants in the building, but he did not provide the Division with any contact information for those tenants. Ps made the allegations that D refused to rent to Farghaly because of her creed in violation of N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(g)(1); made an inquiry regarding Farghaly's creed in connection with the rental of real property in violation [***5] of N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(g)(3); made statements to Farghaly expressing discrimination based on her creed in violation of N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(g)(3); made statements to Tobar expressing discrimination based on gender in violation of N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(g)(3); and transferred ownership of the apartment building with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud plaintiffs in violation of N.J.S.A. 25:2-25(a). Ds denied liability and filed counterclaims for abuse of process and malicious use of process. Ds also filed third-party claims against Farghaly and Elashkar for slander, defamation, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court dismissed the counterclaims prior to trial, severed the third-party claims, and stayed the third-party claims pending disposition of Ps' claims. Farghaly used her cellphone to record a video because she wanted a recording showing D turning her down because she was a Muslim. During the video, which was played for the jury, Farghaly repeatedly asks D, 'You don't want to rent to me because I'm a Muslim?' The recording shows D looking past the camera, presumably at Elashkar, saying, 'Go ahead, hit me.' During her direction examination, Farghaly was asked if she had ever considered 'letting . . . go' of her claims against D. She responded, stating she had considered doing so because her 'religion . . . taught [her] how to forgive and forget and [her] parents always teach [her] the same thing.' She also explained she decided to pursue her claims because she did not want others 'to go through what [she] went through.' On cross-examination, D explained he intended to ask Farghaly about a section of the Quran that provides 'she could lie as a Muslim,' and he argued Farghaly had opened the door to the questions by previously testifying that forgiveness was a tenet of the Muslim faith. The court allowed it along with questions about infidels, etc. After the presentation of all the evidence, the court dismissed the claims against Othilia Greda because there was no evidence she owned the building or participated in the rental of the apartments at issue. The jury returned a no-cause verdict on Ps' claims. Ps appealed. Ps claim the court erred by permitting D to cross-examine Farghaly about her religious beliefs, the tenets of her religion, and the use of religious extremist rhetoric.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.