Black Child banned from Columbus Swimming Pool. VOL. Ohio takes another...

11,070
11,968
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A Cincinnati landlord who claimed a black girl's hair products clouded an apartment complex's swimming pool discriminated against the child by posting a poolside "White Only" sign, an Ohio civil rights panel said Thursday in upholding a previous finding.
The Ohio Civil Rights Commission voted 4-0 against reconsidering its finding from last fall. There was no discussion.

The group found on Sept. 29 that Jamie Hein, who is white, violated the Ohio Civil Rights Act by posting the sign at a pool at the duplex where the teenage girl was visiting her parents.

The parents filed a discrimination charge with the commission and moved out of the duplex in the racially diverse city to "avoid subjecting their family to further humiliating treatment," the commission said in a release announcing its finding.

An investigation revealed that Hein in May posted on the gated entrance to the pool an iron sign that stated "Public Swimming Pool, White Only," the commission statement said.

Several witnesses confirmed that the sign was posted, and the landlord indicated that she posted it because the girl used chemicals in her hair that would make the pool "cloudy," according to the commission.

Hein told the commission she received the sign from a friend, and Ronnell Tomlinson, the commission's housing enforcement director, said at Thursday's hearing it was an antique. The sign says "Selma, Ala.," at the bottom, followed by the date "14 July 31."

The girl's father, Michael Gunn, in brief comments Thursday, described his shock last spring when venturing out for a lunch break by the pool.

"My initial reaction to seeing the sign was of shock, disgust and outrage," Gunn said. He also told the commission that his daughter was saddened months later to learn the reason they moved from the apartment complex "was in a way related to the color of her skin." Gunn declined to speak with reporters.

Hein's attorney, who informed the commission by email Wednesday that Hein would not attend the hearing, did not return phone and email messages Wednesday and Thursday from The Associated Press. A recording on Thursday said Hein's voicemail was full and could not accept messages.

"I was trying to protect my assets," she told the commission's housing enforcement director in a Sept. 27 interview.

Racial discrimination has particular resonance in Cincinnati, whose population is 45 percent black, far higher than the rest of Ohio, which is about 12 percent black. Surrounding Hamilton County is 26 percent black.

Cincinnati was the scene of race riots in April 2001 when police and demonstrators clashed in a blighted neighborhood following the shooting of a black suspect by police.

The commission's statement said that its investigation concluded that the posting of such a sign "restricts the social interaction between Caucasians and African-Americans and reinforces discriminatory actions aimed at oppressing people of color."

It still would be possible for the parties to reach a settlement overseen by the commission before any legal action is taken.

If those discussions don't bear fruit, the commission would issue a formal complaint and refer the matter to the Ohio attorney general's office, which would represent the commission's findings before an administrative law judge. That judge would determine any penalties, which could include a cease-and-desist order and punitive damages.

Any decision by the administrative judge could be appealed to Hamilton County Common Pleas Court in Cincinnati.


Thoughts?

I can understand why the landlord wouldn't want certain chemicals in the pool, but whites only???

pool_010110.jpg
 
Why not just deny people with chemicals in their hair?
Who thought this sign was a good idea? :facepalm:
 
Originally Posted by DROOPY7

Why not just deny people with chemicals in their hair?
Who thought this sign was a good idea? :facepalm:

I believe that's what was argued. But the fact that the ruling was upheld is why this is controversial
 
In 20 years or so, when these old racist hags die out, hopefully the US will be a much better place 
tired.gif
 
Originally Posted by MoonMan818

Originally Posted by DROOPY7

Why not just deny people with chemicals in their hair?
Who thought this sign was a good idea? :facepalm:

I believe that's what was argued. But the fact that the ruling was upheld is why this is controversial
What was the original ruling, I didnt see it anywhere in the article or maybe I missed it.
 
landlord acting like white chicks dont use hair prodicts too. Just another case of racism. I hope a chick with a scurl just drops her activator in the pool
 
Its a private pool and so they can do WHATEVER they want. I love this because black women use FFFFFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARR too many hair products. That stuff is nasty.
 
Originally Posted by milestailsprowe

Its a private pool and so they can do WHATEVER they want. I love this because black women use FFFFFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARR too many hair products. That stuff is nasty.
Obvious troll is obvious.

But everyone uses hair care products. A sign simply banning all hair care products, tanning lotions, and chemicals would have sufficed.
 
Originally Posted by Antidope

Originally Posted by MoonMan818

Originally Posted by DROOPY7

Why not just deny people with chemicals in their hair?
Who thought this sign was a good idea? :facepalm:

I believe that's what was argued. But the fact that the ruling was upheld is why this is controversial
What was the original ruling, I didnt see it anywhere in the article or maybe I missed it.
The original ruling was that they violated Ohio's civil rights laws.
 
Originally Posted by Antidope

I told someone today that Ohio was the worst state in the US, and they tried to argue this...... Link to article

indifferent.gif

How is this dumb $+% woman any type of representation of the state as a whole?  Ohio is just fine.. I probably won't be living here too much longer, but it's just fine.  NT always trying to bring us down while ya'll living in gang & drug cartel capitals of the nation.  

you'll see.. you'll all see *shakes fist*

Yes i'm mad 
mad.gif
 
Originally Posted by Shox23

Originally Posted by zapatohead408

laugh.gif
niketalk stay trying to make ohio look bad.
ohio doesn't need niketalk to make itself look bad
You probably don't even have the stats to get into Ohio State, champ.
grin.gif
 
Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by Antidope

Originally Posted by MoonMan818


I believe that's what was argued. But the fact that the ruling was upheld is why this is controversial
What was the original ruling, I didnt see it anywhere in the article or maybe I missed it.
The original ruling was that they violated Ohio's civil rights laws.

How is that controversial? Thats what I would expect to happen
 
Back
Top Bottom