A few years ago we had a discussion regarding the Valley Swim Club and their backing out on a deal they made with a summer camp, allegedly for racist reasons. You can find it here.
As it turns out, a few months after the incident (and also after the last post in that thread), the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission found probable cause of racial discrimination. You can see their decision here (34 page PDF).
Those racists might have been better off taking the money from the contracts and letting the well-behaved black children take a swim once a week, as they ended up filing for bankruptcy two months after that decision.
One thing that I did learn from reading the PDF is that, while he was obviously an enabler of some of the club’s racist members by giving in, the President of the club doesn’t come across as racist himself, in spite of his rather poorly chosen words at the time.
Since it’s not really pit-worthy yet, let me just add: some racist fuckers are going to have to find a new club in which they can forbid admittance to the “wrong type” of campers.
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING IS REALLY POINTLESS RANTING THAT IS NOT GERMANE AT ALL TO THE SPECIFICS OF THE CASE
In a previous life (i.e. up until a few months ago), I worked in what is the equivalent of the PA Human Rights Commission office in one of their neighboring states, doing more or less the same job as the Pennsylvania office does.
So with that in mind I have to say I am almost professionally embarrassed by the decision Pennsylvania put out. Not because of its conclusion, but because of how they presented it. Of the 249 paragraphs in the “Findings of Facts” section, only 2 or 3 contain any analysis whatsoever and those were really just statements of conclusion rather than application. They cited no rules of law or any of their basic elements and consequently they couldn’t explain how the swimming club violated those laws by their actions. They spent 30 pages detailing what each person said and did in excruciating and often confusing detail (some subsections would be nice) ,and then throw in a paragraph recounting the club’s non-discrimination policy, as if it were somehow more important than the state’s own anti-discrimination laws. Then boom, all of the sudden there is probable cause to find a violation of a Pennsylvania law that they are just now bothering to cite for the first time?!? In the last sentence?!? They don’t even quote the law itself or go over any of its elements. They just rattle off the statute number as part of their form language and move on to the penalties section.
I know for a fact that they have attorneys that work in that office and I know most of them had some variation of the following mantra beaten into their heads for 3 years. ISSUE. RULE. APPLICATION. CONCLUSION. You can’t really skip those middle two steps and put up much of a valid legal argument, can ya?
UNLESS that office has internal regulations that limit their probable cause determinations to only a recitation of the facts and a bare minimum conclusion, there is no excuse for a state agency to put out an official finding like that. Especially one that comes with penalties and other fines. ESPECIALLY with a high-profile case that has a chance for protracted litigation.
Or am I just completely out n the left field on this?
*OK…I’m done. Got that out of my system. We’re good. *
Ancedote alert: When I clerked for a law firm, we had a city as a client who was sued in front of the West Virginia Human Rights Commission. A minority member who complained that the town police discriminated against him for issuing him a WARNING ticket for parking his car on the street with expired registration tags. The first step is a probable cause/no probable cause determination.
When the facts were presented at the hearing, it was found that the city discussed the measure 6 months prior at a council meeting. Too many junk cars were parked on the street so they passed a resolution urging the city police to Do Something. Flyers were put in mailboxes and an ad campaign was announced in the local paper and on the TV news.
The first month the new policy went into effect, over 40 people were issued these warnings. Seven were minorities of some shade. Again: warnings.
One of the residents who was warned filed a complaint because he was given a warning, but his white neighbor 4 blocks down wasn’t. We presented our findings, gathered information and found that the white neighbor WAS given a warning.
Decision of the Human Rights Commission: Probable Cause Found. Move to full discovery.
These boards are absolute shills to the worst elements of racism (reverse racism if you will suffer that term) in society. Pay no attention to anything they do. Real discrimination goes further that these sham boards.
Well, you know, the Black will come off in the water, and next thing you know, these good fine decent white kids will be wearing baggy pants around their knees, eating watermelon and listening to (gasp!) rap music. :rolleyes:
The whole thing was so far beyong ridiculous that I prescribe beatings with sticks for every member of the swim club that had even the remotest spark of a thought that these kids swimming there presented any actual issue.
While I agree with DxZero as to the lack of a legal “tied up with a bow” aspect of the finding, it was pretty obvious that there was racism at play here (and not of the “dreaded” reverse kind), even if you ignore the witness accounts and rely purely on the emails. In the end, the racists lost their pool. Life goes on for the racists, just a little less wet.