Father: "White Only" pool sign caused suffering
This June 9, 2011, photo provided by Michael Gunn, shows a "white only" sign posted on the gate to a swimming pool at a duplex in Cincinnati where Gunn lived. / AP Photo/Michael Gunn
(AP) CINCINNATI - Michael Gunn said he was so upset when he saw his landlord's poolside "White Only" sign that he believes was aimed at his black daughter that he could not remain living at the Cincinnati duplex.
Gunn testified Friday at an Ohio Civil Rights Commission hearing in Cincinnati that the sign at the duplex where he rented an apartment cost his family emotionally and financially. The hearing was held to consider penalties that could include punitive and compensatory damages against Gunn's former landlord.
The commission found on Sept. 29 that landlord Jamie Hein, who claimed that the 10-year-old girl's hair products clouded the pool, discriminated against the child. The commission ruled that Hein, who is white, violated the Ohio Civil Rights Act by posting the sign.
Ohio panel rules "Whites Only" pool sign racist
Hein did not attend Friday's hearing, and a recording said her voicemail was full. The state has said Hein gave up her right to challenge the discrimination ruling by failing to respond to earlier case filings.
A ruling from the administrative law judge who heard the case Friday is not expected for months.
Gunn said his daughter lives with her mother but often visits him and had gone swimming in the pool on Memorial Day weekend in 2011. He said Hein sent him a text message shortly afterward, accusing his daughter of clouding the pool and saying she would have to shower before entering it and wear a swim cap. A few days after that, Gunn said he went to the pool and saw the iron sign stating "Public Swimming Pool, White Only."
Gunn, who is white, said he was so angry his hands were shaking.
"It's something you're supposed to see in history books," Gunn said. "It's not something you're supposed to see posted at the building where you live."
He determined he had to move to protect his daughter and was not about to let her see the sign or risk having Hein upset her.
"I did not want her to think that there were people like this or have her think that just because she wasn't white, people would think less of her," he told the administrative law judge.
Gunn also testified that he incurred costs from moving, lost work time and higher rent in addition to the emotional stress, but said his primary concern was his daughter.
"She shouldn't have to think about the color of her skin in relation to what people think about her," he said.
Elizabeth Brown, executive director of Housing Opportunities Made Equal, also testified — mostly about the impact on the racially diverse community. The nonprofit fair housing agency in Cincinnati helped Gunn file his complaint.
"It's not just a personal issue," Brown said. "Cincinnati has had problems in the past and has worked hard to change its image into a welcoming and inclusive city. An outrageous action like this is another hit on the city's reputation."
Cincinnati was the scene of race riots in April 2001 when police and demonstrators clashed following the shooting of a black suspect by police.
Civil Rights Section Chief Lori Anthony with the Ohio Attorney General's Office told the judge that damages are being sought "to send a clear message that racial discrimination in housing will not be tolerated."
The judge did not indicate when she would rule.
Popular on CBSNews.com
- Firsthand look at MTA mega-digs 11 Photos
- Disruptive man on United jet taken off flight
- Shock as alleged Nazi unit leader, 94, found in U.S
- Feds digging in Mich. field for Jimmy Hoffa's remains
- Church shooting in Ogden, Utah not a random act of violence Play Video
- Former hitman testifies at "Whitey" Bulger trial
- Day care worker accused of drugging snacks for nap-time
- Orca spotted off Calif. coast Play Video
And just think - some changes required people putting their foot down. If, 151 years ago, people voted on the issue, depending on the most populated areas, slavery and slave owners would have won.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering that the slave owners were mostly agri-business and the abolitionists were primarily northern city dwellers, then I would have to cast doubt on your statement.
The Founding Fathers must have been Racist then!!??
For they kept slaves, but wrote a Document which eventually allowed Democracy and Freedom to be adopted across the world.
The USA has a problem still with the race issue.
According to an old neighbour of ours, who was a GI in England in WWII, the Brits were really laid back about race in the 1940s, with the whole community welcoming the US Forces whatever their color and background.
Maybe the USA should take a leaf outa the book the Brits wrote about tolerance. After all, Nelson`s Royal Navy had black sailors, and they were subject to the same RN law as the white sailors.
A shame our neighbour says, that the USA had segregation in the Forces on the War.
Seems whilst the law says one thing, we cannot stop peoples thoughts and opinions.
Was it the free thinker John Locke who said that insults cannot be punished by law, which originated the rhyme "Sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me", in th Age of Enlightenment?
Seems USA has forgotten that lesson!
After all the decades and even centuries of bloodshed and the struggles made to progress, and yet some people still act like THAT.
It's truly appalling.
And just think - some changes required people putting their foot down. If, 151 years ago, people voted on the issue, depending on the most populated areas, slavery and slave owners would have won. and it's a shame humanity's history has been so bloody, all of these centuries, to finally make it to a comparatively civilized state, only to read articles that dare throw us back into the middle ages or worse. Noting illiteracy, I'm surprised more people aren't grunting "Ugh!" to protect their magical, warm shiny hot burny stuff coming out of the fireplace...
There is not much leeway in terms of that sign telling a "misunderstanding". It is blatant racism, pure and simple.
I might expect to find such disgraceful signs in, say, 1950. But not 2012. Good grief...