|
VERY HELPFUL ARTICLE FOR ME, THANKS AGAIN !!!
"Subcomandante" <edicorp@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:sTVne.1517$IE7.1335@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Swimming pools and children. For some associations, the two don't always
> go together peaceably. Many associations wishing to create “adults only”
> pool time have adopted rules that prohibit children from the swimming pool
> during certain times, etc., and in the process have violated the Fair
> Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (“the Act”).
>
> The Act was amended in 1988 to prohibit discrimination against any person
> in their use of a dwelling based on their “familial status.” The Act
> defines “familial status” as a situation where one or more minors are
> domiciled with a parent, legal guardian, or the designee of a parent or
> guardian. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
> (“HUD”) is the governmental agency responsible for implementing the
> provisions of the Act. HUD adopts regulations to clarify the prohibited
> acts of discrimination in housing. These regulations include a prohibition
> against rules that have the effect of restricting a resident’s use of the
> recreational facilities associated with a dwelling based on their familial
> status. HUD and various cases have found that the Act clearly applies to
> associations’ swimming pools.
>
> If a court finds that an association has adopted rules that violate the
> Act, the association will be responsible for the costs of defending
> against any such claims, and the association may be responsible for paying
> monetary damages (actual and punitive), plus the attorneys’ fees of the
> complaining resident. Therefore, it is in an association’s best interests
> to have legal counsel review its pool rules to determine whether they
> violate the Act. Once it has been discovered that a rule potentially
> violates the act, that rule must be abandoned or modified. It isn't
> sufficient to take the issue under advisement or investigation.
>
> A quick glance at most associations’ rules regarding swimming pools will
> likely uncover at least one rule prohibited by the Act. These include
> certain rules based on age, restrictions against children wearing diapers
> in the pool, adult-only pools and adult-only hours or swim times. These
> rules are facially discriminatory under the Act as they appear to
> discriminate against families with children by not providing equal access
> to the swimming pool to all residents. Over the past decade, a number of
> court decisions have applied the provisions of the Act to community
> association swimming pool rules and regulations. The cases have held that
> restrictions on children’s use of a swimming pool, where those same
> restrictions don't apply to other adult residents, are prima facie cases
> of discrimination under the Act.
>
> Courts have found that the only way an association may avoid liability for
> rules that discriminate against children is to show two things: (1) that
> the pool rule is rooted in a “compelling business necessity,” and (2) that
> the rule constitutes the “least restrictive means” to achieve the desired
> effect. In the context of swimming pools, concerns about safety and
> sanitation typically prompt associations to adopt rules that limit
> children’s use of the pool. Of course, keeping the pool safe and sanitary
> presents a compelling business necessity, but the Act requires that
> associations come up with more inventive ways to address their safety and
> sanitation concerns than simply forbidding minors under a certain age or
> non-toilet trained children from using the pool.
>
> To better understand what types of pool rules can be validly adopted, a
> review of several cases is helpful.
>
> • An association’s rule forbidding children under 18 to swim without an
> adult was found by the courts to be in violation of the Act because it was
> overly restrictive. The court reasoned that under such a rule, even a
> 17-year old certified life guard could not swim alone. Less restrictive
> means could achieve the same safety goals by requiring persons without
> swimming skills to be accompanied by a person with swimming skills,
> regardless of age.
>
> • A rule prohibiting all non-toilet trained children in the pool was also
> a violation because the goal could have been achieved by requiring all
> non-toilet trained persons to wear waterproof pants.
>
> • Prohibiting baby strollers, walkers and playpens from the pool area was
> considered discriminatory even though it was clearly based upon safety
> concerns. The court found that a rule allowing only lounge chairs in the
> pool area have accomplished the same goal.
>
> • A rule prohibiting inner tubes, balls and floats was not discriminatory
> because it covered equipment not used exclusively by children.
>
> The essentials to making sure your rules comply with the Act are as
> follows:
>
> (1) does the rule serve a compelling business purpose, such as safety or
> sanitation;
>
> (2) is it the least restrictive way to achieve that purpose; and
>
> (3) does it explicitly single out any persons or families based solely on
> age?
>
> As you can see, it is easy to violate the Act, even though the association
> believes it is acting prudently and in the best interests of all its
> members. It is important and helpful to have legal counsel review pool
> rules for compliance with the Act and with other federal and state fair
> housing laws. Once an association realizes that one or more of its pool
> rules is in violation of the Act, the association should take prompt
> action to remedy the problem. Even if that remedy consists of only an
> interim rule to bring the rule into compliance until a permanent change
> can be adopted. In addition, it is prudent for associations to have its
> directors and officers insurance reviewed by legal counsel to verify that
> there is proper coverage in the event the association or board members are
> sued for violating fair housing laws.
>
> http://www.imakenews.com/ortenhindman/e_article000155603.cfm
>
> -Sub
|
|
Re: Do Your Pool Rules Discriminate?
