The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found on Monday that a condominium’s gender-segregated pool time policy in a Lakewood condominium discriminated against women.
The court ruled for a group of owners who sued after each were fined $50 by their condominium association for violating the rules of A Country Place Condominium Association about the pool that includes separate swimming times for men and women in accordance with strict modesty standards upheld by Orthodox Jews, who consist of two-thirds of the association’s residents during of the 2016 lawsuit.
The judges said the policy violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and the federal Fair Housing Act, which “makes it an unlawful housing practice to “discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status or national origin.”
The judges said “inequitable features” in the swimming schedule was unlawful in that on weeknights, women were allotted 3.5 hours of pool time after 5 p.m., while the men had 16.5 hours. Only 25 hours were allocated for people of all sexes.
Judge Thomas Ambro ruled that “women with regular-hour jobs thus have little access to the pool during the work week, and the schedule appears to reflect particular assumptions about the roles of men and women.”
While they stopped short of ruling that any gender-segregated pool is unlawful, one of the judges expressed “vehement disapproval of segregation” over the “separate, but equal” policies.
(JNS)
{Matzav.com}
I don’t understand, is it an issue of separate swimming, or is it unfair for men to have more hours at the pool then the women? The article’s title is misleading. I can totally understand why it’s discrimination if men are given more time then women, but if it’s an equal amount of time then it’s totally fine.
Shame on Judge Ambro
“vehement disapproval of segregation” over the “separate, but equal” policies. I see more trouble brewing, chas v’chalilah.
Rachmana litzlan
I have the perfect solution. It all comes down to using the correct terminology NYC recently changed the birth certificates to say, male, female and undecided. I would assume if they made special swimming hours for undecided persons there would be no problems. Even better instead of saying male pool hours use the G word. Instead of saying female pool hours use the L word. I guarantee 1000% there would be no problems.
You’re %100 percent right. The problem is Matzav in their sanctimonious phonyism won’t allow comments defending the Aibishter’s kavod to be posted.
I’m sorry to say this and I hope this comment will make it past the censor but I vehemently disagree with the frum people involved. We are in golus.
A non-Jew I’ve work with who never showed the slightest hint of anti-Semitism has parents who lived in a Lakewood retirement community . Frum people moved in starting changing all the rules, until his elderly parents felt they had to move. Can you blame for not wanting frum people moving near him?
Or as a resident of the community under discussion here put it to me . By one of the meetings about changing the rules to accommodating frum people (and making life more difficult for everyone else) a long term resident got up and said “Until you (frum people) moved here everyone lived in peace and harmony, no one ever tried changing rules etc. Now everything is a fight over changing rules”
Does she really have no point that doesn’t have to be taken into account in golus?
Couldn’t agree more
The article clearly states that the issue was the schedule, i.e. the amount of time and time of day allotted for women, not necessarily the separate swimming itself. I agree the words of one of the judges are troubling but the lawsuit itself makes sense.
If the frum people can’t use the pool, and the frum people are majority owners, they can vote in changes to the condominium, such as “the swimming pool is to be closed, filled with concrete, and a children’s playground to be built in its place”. What would the goyishe troublemakers sing then, it would be 100% legal after all.
“Women with regular-hour jobs thus have little access to the pool during the work week”
Sounds pretty fair to me..headline is kind of misleading.