Ohio panel sticks to ‘White Only’ pool sign ruling

Michael Gunn, left, of Cincin­nati holds a pic­ture of a sign that his land­lord, Jamie Hein, posted on the entrance of the apart­ment swim­ming pool as Eliz­a­beth Brown of Hous­ing Oppor­tu­ni­ties Made Equal, looks on dur­ing a hear­ing. The com­mis­sion upheld its find­ing that Gunn’s African-American daughter’s civil rights were vio­lated when Hein banned her from swim­ming in the pool, cit­ing that chem­i­cals in the girl’s hair would make the pool cloudy. (Asso­ci­ated Press | Paul Vernon)

ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS

AP Legal Affairs Writer

COLUMBUS — A state panel on Thurs­day upheld its deci­sion that 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 “White Only” sign poolside.

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.

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 her daugh­ter was sad­dened months later to learn they moved from the apart­ment com­plex “was in a way related to the color of her skin.” Gunn declined to speak with reporters.

Hein has repeat­edly declined to com­ment and did not attend the hear­ing. Mes­sages were left at her lawyer’s office Wednes­day and Thursday.

“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 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.”

The case is to be referred 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.

It still would be pos­si­ble for the par­ties to reach a set­tle­ment before resort­ing to legal action.

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

Posted by AP News on Jan 12 2012. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS Feed. Comments can be made below.