Skip to comments.Resort That Refused Black Family Pool Access Must Pay
Posted on 08/11/2005 11:55:37 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
An extended African-American family, most of whom reside in Maryland, today announce the settlement of their discrimination claim against a vacation rental condominium resort in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, which barred them from using its swimming pool. Among other things, the settlement of the complaint filed by the Lawyers' Committee and the law firm of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, provides the plaintiffs with monetary compensation, the amount of which cannot be disclosed under the agreement.
Over 100 African-American family members alleged that they were racially discriminated against when they stayed at Baytree III, part of the Baytree Plantation in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for the Turner-Gray family reunion in July 2001. The plaintiffs alleged that shortly after they arrived for their family reunion weekend, Stuart Jenkins, property manager of Baytree III and president of the Homeowners' Association, padlocked and chained the entrance to the pool area closing it off to the reunion attendees. According to the complaint, the day after the reunion ended, Jenkins removed the padlock and chain and reopened the pool to guests, personally inviting white guests to use the pool during their stay.
"We selected Baytree as the site for our reunion in part because of its amenities, including the pool facilities," stated Gloria Turner-Simpkins, one of the plaintiffs who organized the family reunion. "But instead of being able to enjoy them, because of these discriminatory actions, we were humiliated and saddened, during what was meant to be an enjoyable family gathering," added Mrs. Turner-Simpkins.
In addition to monetary compensation, the Homeowners' Association agreed to issue a written apology to the family members, to conduct fair housing training for individuals involved in the day-today management of Baytree III, and to inform its members of its policy of non-discrimination.
"This settlement makes clear that such racist behavior and such blatant disregard for the law will not be tolerated," stated Charles Lester, a partner in the Atlanta office of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP and one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.
"It is sad but true that in this day and age there are still those who want to stop African Americans from enjoying the same privileges as everyone else," said Barbara Arnwine, Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. "While no amount of money can make these family members whole for the racist acts they had to endure and to explain to their small children, this settlement does give them some measure of justice."
I just don't get this at all. Didn't this manager know that this was going to happen? What's wrong with this man? What's wrong with the family using the pool?
If it happened as presented, a fair call. I notice that there was no defense presented in the article. Did the resort offer any?
The story would have been just fine without thata paplum.
It sures sounds to me like was a clear cut case of discrimination.
This kinda shiz is still happening in 2005?
So they are good enough to rent to and use the rooms, but not the pool? If you are going to be a racist, at least be consistent.
I am amazed that they didn't call police at the time.
Reprehensible...but, IMO, assuming that this discrimination represented the will of a private homeowners association...everyone should have the right to associate or not associate with whomever they like...on whatever basis they like
First, the resort was absolutely wrong and should be punished. But my evil, cynical twin is asking if part of the settlement is going to include changing the name of the resort to something "less offensive" to black families who would like to hold their family reunions there?
Filed a lawsuit for a 100-member, African-American family that held a reunion, in July 2001, at the Baytree Plantation in Myrtle Beach, SC. Defendants are the Baytree III Homeowners Association and its president, Stuart Jenkins. The suit alleges Mr. Jenkins engaged in racial discrimination by padlocking and chaining the entrance to the pool area, closing it to reunion attendees; and reopening it to guests in all three Baytree complexes and personally inviting white guests to use the pool the day following the reunion. This incident marked the first time that many of our small children were exposed to overt racism, said one of the reunion plaintiffs (Turner v. Baytree III Homeowners Assoc).
Notice how the wording is essentially identical in their press release of today as the write-up on their beginning the case in 2001.
I you suggesting that I should have the right not to sell my house to a black person for no other reason than the are black? What if I don't want to rent one of my aprtments to black people or serve black people at my restaurant? Freedom of Association?
I you... = Are you...
Hopefully an unemployed idiot
"Reprehensible...but, IMO, assuming that this discrimination represented the will of a private homeowners association...everyone should have the right to associate or not associate with whomever they like...on whatever basis they like"
You are free to hold that personal opinion, but be assured that it is at wide variance with the laws these days.
Private clubs, associations which exclude people based on race and religion are clearly illegal.
That would include "homeowners associations." HOAs in turn hire Property Management companies. These companies know well about illegal discrimination, in real estate activities.
I'm gonna get nailed for this but...private property owners should be allowed to restrict/admit whoever they please onto all or any of their property.
I wouldn't climb in a public pool if you paid me.
They may not have realized the Turner-Grays were African American before they arrived.
You find old Democrats like this in the South sometimes, who never got that memo back in 1967...
"But my evil, cynical twin is asking if part of the settlement is going to include changing the name of the resort to something "less offensive" to black families who would like to hold their family reunions there?"
lol I think you should tell your evil, cynical twin to take a break. This particular family had no qualm with the name of the resort; their beef was (justifiably) with the management.
Go away, newbie.
"I'm gonna get nailed for this but...private property owners should be allowed to restrict/admit whoever they please onto all or any of their property."
That's all well and good when that property is yours alone and not to share with anyone else (if everyone entering your space is a guest). However, what do you say when there's a Homeowners Association that rents out their property to others? It may be private, but if they're going to rent their property to others, you have to take into account the freedoms of others who may want to rent.
This is why the anti-discrimination act came along - to provide reason to the selection process. In other words, if you want to keep riffraff out, then fine; run a background check on everyone (regardless of their race) applying to rent your space. However, to say that you just don't want someone in your space because he/she is a certain colour is a baseless argument, and it hurts the freedom of the people wishing to rent.
Go away because I believe in private property rights!
Ok ! lol
Private property owners, yes, but this was a business, a resort doing business with the public. In case you hadn't heard, the public now includes black people. Private property rights are a poor refuge for public racism.
I'm not so sure I follow you but...no one should have the "freedom" to anothers property.
It has nothing to do with racism, as I would have no problem with a black property owner restricting access to whites, or whoever else he (as the owner) wants to restrict.
You're talking about private property. This was a business.
Sorry, but you don't know what my beliefs are.
I know...but being that most of the laws on which these cases are based are federal laws and being that most of them are claimed to be authorized under the Commerce Clause and being that the federal courts engaged in absurd illogic to justify federal civil rights laws under the Commerce Clause (think Heart of Atlanta Motel)...the laws are themselves unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal.
But constitutionality and legalities aside...people, in their private affairs (and in my mind that would include hiring employees, selling your home, etc.) should have the legal right to be racist, misogynist, male-hating, anti-religious, ant-gay, anti-secular, anti-tall person, anti-short person...whatever. One would hope that, over time, social pressure and condemnation, simple economics and a basic sense of morality would make such discrimination a rarity
It is public facilties which are barred from discriminating. Private clubs and groups can do it all they want, as they should be able to. A private club that runs a public facility has to follow the public rules.
Businesses are private property.
The minute they open themselves up to the public for business, they are subject to laws governing business, including non-discrimination.
Let me clarify - if the owners of the private property are offering their space for a fee, then it's not so private anymore, as they're maintaining a business. Therefore, they are to uphold the fair business practices (that should be) enforced in the U.S. Otherwise, their actions are illegal - regardless of which race is discriminating against which...
My point was that I disagree with those laws.
Yes...freedom of association...private property rights and the basic natural right to be stupid...after all...who else but an idiot would, right off the bat, reduce his potential pool of buyers by deciding he's not going to sell to someone based on some arbitrary characteristic?
Right, but my point was those actions should not be illegal.
You are, of course, within your rights to disagree with those laws.
"Businesses are private property."
That said, I work for a retail store. What if the CEO decided that he doesnt want Hispanic folks coming into our stores, are you saying that he should be within his right to bar them entrance? What do you think would happen to our company?
And my disagreement with those laws are based on private property rights and freedom, not race, as I was accused of earlier.
Thank you Mr Crow.
The store's management would probably be charged with some violations of unconstitutional federal laws...but what should happen is that decent people stop patronzing the store, people protest outside the store and the store is forced to change its policy
Yes, the owners should be withing their rights to deny access to whomever they please, and, your company would probably lose a lot of business and go down the drain.
But, it shouldn't be up to the Gov't to make sure you practice good business practices at all times.
"What do you think would happen to our company?"
Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? Your CEO could make that decision and should be entitled to. That said, it would be a stupid move. If being mean and stupid were against the law, Cindy Sheenan would already be in prison.
"who else but an idiot would, right off the bat, reduce his potential pool of buyers by deciding he's not going to sell to someone based on some arbitrary characteristic?"
Well, that being the case, maybe the law should be changed, so that people can discriminate based on whatever, and idiots should be barred from operating businesses. /sarc
Seriously though, if the laws were changed to reflect your belief of freedom of association, I feel that there'd be a lot more segregation going on, which I thought was something this country was trying to move away from. I'm sure there are many people in this country (of all races) who would love to be able to discriminate for such petty reasons.
The best businesses get repeat business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.