Double-barrelled Mega-PING! to both lists! If you want on, FReepmail me!
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."
ping.
"I am wondering what is the safe capacity of the pool? and how many from a family of moer than 100 were trying to use it?"
It's a valid question, but had that been taken into account and explained to the family, I'm sure there would not have been a lawsuit, but rather a way to work around the large number of children (perhaps letting groups at a time in the pool?).
So they should be permitted to keep us "filthy dark people" out, right?
Feh.
Also, the settlement precludes the resort from speaking about this, but the "extended family" sure had no problem finding someone to document their story. I hate when only one side of a story is presented.
Read the rest of my posts...
Just as you should have the right to keep out whomever you please on your own private property.
Double-barrelled Mega-PING! to both lists! If you want on, FReepmail me!
Based on what? Ive seen suit for dumber things and so have you.
Funny, I see lots of restrictions on what the Govt. can do in the 14th Amendment. I don't seem to see the part restricting what citizens can do.
This whole thing could have been better dealt with by bad publicity, and private organizations and customers stopping their patronage. There is no longer a need for these laws; the public opinion of bigots like the manager of this resort has firmly settled and Jim Crow businesses won't thrive.
I agree 100%.
Thank you for suggesting this also. See my post # 54.
This whole issue could be race related, but I doubt it.
We've been down this road before with the MSM and their one-sided view of the news. I call it selective reporting. I suppose if ALL the facts were truly presented, we would not be having this discussion.
If all the facts were known... this would be a non-story.
Now you've done it, Dolphan. You got a "just damn" from the "king" of "just damn".
They settled giving an apology and an undisclosed sum of money. That usually means that they either don't have a defense or they don't have one that they think a jury will buy.
Just as long as I don't get a "just banned" from the King of FR, I'm OK.
Outrageous.
Why should the Government be used as a tool of first choice to address this type of issue? Aren't the other methods of punishing this type of antisocial behavior just as effective: boycotts, bad publicity (such as the resort is getting right here), public shunning, picketing, even FReeping? Shouldn't those approaches be the preferred method for a conservative to push social values, as opposed to resorting to the apparatus of the Federal Government?
I can't tell you how many times I've heard a litigant say after getting a boatload of money in a lawsuit, "but money can never replace . . . ." But they always take the money anyway.
To me this is not a black or white issue.
I have no problem with the black this or black that organization.
I believe in the freedom of association, and if X number of black ____ want to organize, god speed.
Well, Hatteras, why don't you follow up with this story and let us know. In the meantime, I see no reason to speculate bad things about people and criticize them for it when they had a valid complaint.
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.