Swimming pool rules for kids

[DoitrightDC]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Maryland

We live in a condo in Maryland. The condo's board made one clause in the swimming pool rules as:"Children are under age 3 and not potty trained are not allowed to go to the main pool."

We have an infant pool next to the main pool. Kids are restricted in the infant pool only. Several parents raised the question on the specific rule mentioned above. Since they even didn't give a chance of the "swim diaper" and they literally wrote age 3 on the rule, is it age discrimination? Is it legal?

Can we request a legal review regarding these private rules?

Thanks for the help.

 

[Antigone*]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Maryland

We live in a condo in Maryland. The condo's board made one clause in the swimming pool rules as:"Children are under age 3 and not potty trained are not allowed to go to the main pool."

We have an infant pool next to the main pool. Kids are restricted in the infant pool only. Several parents raised the question on the specific rule mentioned above. Since they even didn't give a chance of the "swim diaper" and they literally wrote age 3 on the rule, is it age discrimination? Is it legal?

Can we request a legal review regarding these private rules?

Thanks for the help.

It would not do you any good. This private entity can enact any rules it care to enact.

Being an infant in a swim diaper has not yet risen to the level of a protected class.

 

[xylene]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Maryland

We live in a condo in Maryland. The condo's board made one clause in the swimming pool rules as:"Children are under age 3 and not potty trained are not allowed to go to the main pool."

We have an infant pool next to the main pool. Kids are restricted in the infant pool only. Several parents raised the question on the specific rule mentioned above. Since they even didn't give a chance of the "swim diaper" and they literally wrote age 3 on the rule, is it age discrimination? Is it legal?

Can we request a legal review regarding these private rules?

Thanks for the help.

You have a kiddie pool.

Your under age 3 kids can't go in the adult pool, as it should be.

Since you are asking my opinion, a child under age 3 should not be going in ANY pool.

 

[Hot Topic]

Age discrimination involves people 40 years old and older.

If you want to take your munchkin swimming, find a pool that allows (or even encourages) them to swim.

 

[HomeGuru]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Maryland

We live in a condo in Maryland. The condo's board made one clause in the swimming pool rules as:"Children are under age 3 and not potty trained are not allowed to go to the main pool."

We have an infant pool next to the main pool. Kids are restricted in the infant pool only. Several parents raised the question on the specific rule mentioned above. Since they even didn't give a chance of the "swim diaper" and they literally wrote age 3 on the rule, is it age discrimination? Is it legal?

Can we request a legal review regarding these private rules?

Thanks for the help.

**A: yes, you can request a legal review.

 

[cbg]

Even the most generous age discrimination laws, which are not in Maryland, do not apply to anyone under the age of 18.

So while you CAN ask for a legal review, it is highly unlikely that the limits will be found to be discriminatory, if by discriminatory you mean illegal.

 

[seniorjudge]

...Being an infant in a swim diaper has not yet risen to the level of a protected class....

At the home, we must wear our DEPENDs before we can swim.

 

[cyjeff]

At the home, we must wear our DEPENDs before we can swim.

How do you scratch out your mind's eye?

 

[Ohiogal]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge
At the home, we must wear our DEPENDs before we can swim.

How do you scratch out your mind's eye?

LOL. Oh man. That is great.

 

[DeenaCA]

Families with children are a protected class under the federal Fair Housing Act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/3604.html). In HUD v. Paradise Gardens, a homeowners association was found liable for imposing overly-restrictive pool rules, including banning children under 5.

The HUD site with the full ALJ decision has been down lately, but here's a synopsis: http://fairhousing.com/index.cfm?method=page.display&pagename=November_1992_Page5. There's a longer description of the decision at http://www.abanet.org/rppt/meetings...sday/FromADAtoFairHousing/PoliakoffPaper2.pdf.

You should note that the ALJ held in this decision that reasonable health and safety restrictions are valid, including a ban on children who are not toilet trained. In general, the HOA may establish rules to ensure health and safety, while restrictions designed for the convenience of adults may violate the Act.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Amazingly enough, ALJ decisions so often seem to come down on the opposite side of what the law actually says. But that aside, here's a nice discussion of pool rules vs. FHA:
http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20080521_hoapool.htm