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."
Not hate-crime laws, consumer protection laws.
The family leased this property (at least as I understand it, please correct me if I'm wrong) with the understanding that they would have full access to the facilities (including the pool).
If anything, this falls under the category of "bait and switch."
I doubt anyone would be that stupid, not even most bureaucrats.
Thank you, Jim.
"ZOT!", the ultimate tool of "freedom of association", aptly and expertly applied.
And thanks for allowing me to associate with fine FReepers, everywhere.
"Until relatively recently, the law said you had to ride at the back of the bus. When you cede the Government the authority to enforce and impose social values by statute, what happens when those statutes are written that destroy societal fabrics?"
But that's what statutes are: the enforcement of social values by government. You can't date women under 18 (or 17, or 16, depending on where you are). Why? Because the social mores are such that a statute has been made to say so. Of course, you still CAN, but then the government will punish you if you're caught. You can't look at child porn, legally, or smoke dope, legally, because of two social values enacted into statutes. You can't drive 50 in a school zone or run red lights, because society prizes its safety, has made the statutory rules of the road, and enforces them with government power.
In the United States, well nigh 1 million people have died as a direct or indirect result of racist laws and bad policies, and the efforts to change them. We fought a Civil War over this, not to mention the long and sorry saga of thousands of lynchings. The treatment of Indians in certain cases was brutal and unconscionable. Those bad things happened, and we amended the Constitution right after the Civil War to try and do the right thing on race issues...only to find ourselves as a country not good enough to stick to our resolution.
Black and Indian race issues have killed too many people in our American history to treat these as just like any other ho-hum property rights and association matter. Now yes, if you're talking offended Italian-Americans because of the Sopranos, or offended Latinos at racial insensitivity, or even offended Japanese at the World War II internments, you are talking about issues that properly belong in the normal scheme of things. But when we speak of black-white issues or Indian affairs, we are not talking about things that stand on the same footing as other theoreticals or irritants. We are talking about flaming sins of our past that cost a million lives.
Taking the "it's private property, you have the right to exclude blacks from businesses" line is a very good way for that be extended into the present.
We amended the Constitution 4 times to protect blacks, in particular, because they needed protection. Nothing can be allowed to stand in the way of that.
The only way that we got to liberty in the first place was by law and statute. There isn't any way to get away from them. That's what government does. The only thing that matters is the CONTENT of the laws. Civilization cannot endure without laws and statutes.
"Of course, the black lady lost."
As well she should have - if she wants to be selective of who she rents to on the basis of something so petty as the colour of their skin, then she shouldn't be renting, period.
As I mentioned earlier, being selective for certain valid reasons (such as excluding known offenders, etc) is one thing; discriminating over skin colour is another, and wrong - no matter how you slice it. We preach morality (for the most part) on this forum, and the idea that anyone here would want a law to protect bigotry is ludicrous.
If you dislike someone because of their skin colour, you're entitled to feel that way. Don't impose your prejudice in a public venue and expect to get away with under some banner of "freedom of assication".
"Ive seen suit for dumber things and so have you."
No argument there; put it this way: had there been a legitimate reason why the family could not use the pool (maintanance, etc) then yes, they could have *tried* to sue, but it's highly unlikely that they would have won - at least, not on the grounds of discrimination.
That's fraud, not civil rights.
I doubt anyone would be that stupid, not even most bureaucrats.
In 1970, you would have said the same thing about homosexuals. In 2005, you'd be slapped with a discrimination lawsuit if you refused to hire someone because they were homosexual.
And pay they should. There is no excuse for this.
She's the Executive Director of the lawyers. What else
would you expect her to say?
That's true. But it's not against the law to be gay. It IS against the law to be a child molester.
That's my point. This isn't a civil rights issue, it's more tied to the enforcement of a contract, and other business related legal issues (which start to get out of my realm; I apologize).
Unless not or his duties involve trashcans and grease-traps
the suit wasn't successful.
So you think a world where a sign that says "No Coloreds" is ok on a restaurant door?
Wow I don't. That kind of behavior is Neanderthal and stupid.
The closest thing to it today is how liberals want to seperate us into groups.
If you are black and were there, would you think it was ok that your children were told that they wern't worthy to swim because of the pigment in their skin?
There are to many false situations where Jesse Jackson and his gang of thugs get their racist machine all cranked up to extort money.
This is a real situation where someone has been wronged. It was probably just one stupid person managing the place, it will cost someone $$.
What about Womens Work out World?
Just goes to show that there is no shortage of idiots.
I'm sure there is. I read through this looonnng thread, and couldn't find one sign of the other side. And, as Judge Judy says, if something doesn't make sense, it isn't true.
Why would a hotel rent to such a large group and allow them access to all facilities except the pool?
Old fashioned racists didn't like the idea of using dishware or linens that Blacks had used. This hotel had no problem with that, so why would the pool be a bigger problem? A healthy dose of chlorine takes care of worse problems than that.
What if this was a typical hotel pool, where there is no lifeguard, and you swim at your own risk? And this family of 100 showed up with 30-40 small kids and didn't appear to be watching them carefully?
Isn't the cost risk of a discrimination lawsuit less than the risk of a reckless death suit?
And I know Myrtle Beach has had problems with how to handle the Black bikers every year. Their PR stinks. Anyway, this looks to me like one of the cases where the accused just took the cheapest way out, and we will never know thewhole story.
To degrade others is a terrible thing, but I am not of the opinion that governmental regulation is the best way to address it. The flaws in our culture need to be solved from within, not imposed from outside.
But that's what statutes are: the enforcement of social values by government.
Some are, some are not. There is a difference between laws that protect us from actual harm (murder, rape, child abuse, etc.), and laws that, when it comes down to it, promote one person's rights at the expense of another's. When it comes to the latter, it becomes a balance between whose rights are circumscribed more: one person's right to run a business as they wish vs. another's right to equal use of publicly offered services.
The only way that we got to liberty in the first place was by law and statute.
No, the way we got to liberty was by revolting against unjust laws and statutes, and seizing back our God-given rights from the hands of mortal Kings.
Well, then, we agree.
But the case was a discrimination case, not a breach of contract case. One is citizen vs citizen, the other citizen vs. Govt.
It used to be against the law to commit homosexual acts, as much as it is to be a commit sexual acts with a child. The SCOTUS just recently struck down sodomy laws.
Give the ACLU and NAMBLA another 20 years, and you may not be able to say that.