?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Re: the kids in Philly who were forced to leave a swim club in what… - Zer Netmouse
July 10th, 2009
02:38 pm

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Re: the kids in Philly who were forced to leave a swim club in what appears to be a violation of section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act, if you'd like to condemn the Valley Swim Club's actions and encourage the Department of Justice to consider suing them for a violation of Federal law, go here to do so.

(11 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:phawkwood
Date:July 10th, 2009 07:54 pm (UTC)
(Link)
This is the first I've heard of this (mostly 'cuse I can't stand network news anymore). I did read a little bit on the web, and it sounded like this was an issue of the number of people not the racial make up, or at least that's what the club folks were saying. Is there something out there that indicates otherwise?
[User Picture]
From:netmouse
Date:July 10th, 2009 08:03 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Did you see my original post?

The reference to it being the number of kids not their race was a later statement. What the kids and paprents reported indicated that on the day of they were faced with racism, on the part of club members as well as the staff (or enforced by the staff).
[User Picture]
From:phawkwood
Date:July 10th, 2009 08:09 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Ah no I hadn't seen that. That's fairly shameful.
[User Picture]
From:netmouse
Date:July 10th, 2009 08:11 pm (UTC)
(Link)
indeed.
[User Picture]
From:zoethe
Date:July 10th, 2009 09:42 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The problem is that it might not be a violation of the Civil Rights Act. Private clubs that do not take any kind of funding from the federal government are not subject to the Civil Rights Act - the federal government doesn't have a right to violate their privacy.

Don't get me wrong; I think the behavior of the club members is completely despicable. But there probably isn't a legal case to be made against them. Private clubs have consistently been protected by the Supreme Court.
[User Picture]
From:netmouse
Date:July 10th, 2009 09:47 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I seem to recall the section cited had to do with employment, not letting people into the club as members.
[User Picture]
From:zoethe
Date:July 10th, 2009 09:52 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I've been really busy and haven't had time to track it down, but the contract provisions may well be enough. Employment doesn't seem to be an issue here, since they don't appear to have employees involved, but contract provisions might be a foundation for a case.
[User Picture]
From:novapsyche
Date:July 10th, 2009 09:48 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It may be at least a case of false advertising--it's open membership, but only for the right members.

Reading the section of the CRA involved, it may well apply, as the two sides did have a contract, secured by the payment of funds. The club tried to break the contract by returning the money, and the camp had none of it (smart on their part if they are considering a suit). Also, the section partly deals with employers, and that is not delineated into federal and private.
[User Picture]
From:zoethe
Date:July 10th, 2009 09:51 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Well, then I hope they nail the bastards!
[User Picture]
From:fledgist
Date:July 11th, 2009 02:33 am (UTC)
(Link)
[User Picture]
From:kyril
Date:July 12th, 2009 03:51 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Netmouse on the web Powered by LiveJournal.com