Requiring adult supervision when kids use pool = unlawful discrimination?

It’s okay for a condo swimming pool to require adult supervision of children, right? Wrong: “familial status” is one of the many bases for protection under housing discrimination law. As a result, “any rule or policy targeting children is likely to trigger a discrimination accusation or a fair housing inquiry.” To defend it against attack, the condo must be prepared to prove that the rule or policy is both based on a “compelling business necessity” and represents the “least restrictive means” to achieve the stated purpose. You’d think safety might be an adequate reason, but in two cases federal courts in California have found otherwise. Some rules might survive if, e.g., they are based on Red Cross guidelines, but putatively improper motives such as reducing noise or crowd control must not enter into any rationale. Also, policies must permit unrelated companions, rather than just parents, to count as the supervision [Matt D. Ober, Washington Post]

5 Comments

  • Because, of course, we want to take everything to its logical conclusion.

    Except, of course, things like ex post facto when it comes to RSOs.

    • Unfortunately there is really old precedent that the ex post facto thing only applies to criminal law, and much more recently, SCOTUS decided that the sex offender registries aren’t a criminal penalty.

      • Understood of course—but here’s the problem—someone who has served their time is (other than the ability to restrict voting, which is a very close call) stands before the government as any other citizen. So where is the source of power to restrict where they live (for old convictions)–all upon pain of serious criminal penalities. You don’t need a law degree to know how lawless this is.

        • Of course it’s lawless. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has blessed this lawlessness.

          The only way to stop it is to overturn the SCOTUS decision that these registries are civil rather than criminal penalties. The ex-post-facto only applies to criminal law is nearly 200 years old and they aren’t going to overturn that one.

  • This made me laugh. A few years ago, a company that I worked for rented a facility for a picnic. It had a pool and the Company hired a lifeguard to work the picnic. The lifeguard didn’t show up, so I volunteered to be the lifeguard. I was turned down because I wasn’t a “certified lifeguard”. There was no place in that pool that I couldn’t have waded to and I was “certified in CPR and First Aid.

    A few years later my Great Niece played in a junior basketball league in the school gym on weekends. Word got out that if they had a “certified” lifeguard, they could open the pool after the league was finished. I volunteered to take the “certification course”. I had a 19 year old teaching the class. That was four hours of my life that I want back. I got the certification and they opened the pool.

    The funny thing is that I was a Combat Search and Rescue swimmer in the Navy.

Join the Discussion

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.