Fair Housing/Age restrictions

I have been going over old minutes from our HOA to try and find some documentation of an issue that has reared it's head again after a few years. No luck, but I did find documentation that the HOA settled a HUD/Fair Housing discrimination claim about 15 years ago without admitting guilt. The final settlement was they had to pay the family $5000 and change some rules that restricted the use of the clubhouse by children. The actual wording of the original rules isn't clear, but I think they either said no children in the clubhouse or no unsupervised children in the clubhouse. We are not an over 55 community.

The background on the case is interesting - the HOA decided to persue fines against the family because one of their under 16 children had vandalized the clubhouse, but rather than use that as the reason, they tried to enforce the no children or unsupervised children rule because they thought it would be easier to prove. The family was also a racial minority and claimed discrimination because of that, and also they family had a delinquent account and had been suspended from using the common area.

My question is this: we still have two rules that mention the ages of children. One says that at the pool, anyone under 12 must be accompanied by someone over 14. The other says that no one under 16 can use the fitness rooms unless they are accompanied by a personal trainer or are in a fitness class. Both of these rules appear to be for safety reasons.

Could either of these rules still be considered a violation of Fair Housing? No one has complained, but the old case made be think about the consequences of our current rules.

I take back what I said. An HOA attorney in my state says the following:

Rules restricting “children playing” in common areas have been ruled invalid because, even though safety concerns exist, the rule is overly broad and has the impact of limiting children from using large areas of the property. On the other hand, rules prohibiting bicycle riding, skateboarding, rollerblading, etc. on common area sidewalks, walkways, and parking areas that are age neutral are valid.

Further, requiring the supervision of children on common areas has been held to be unreasonable. Prohibiting the storage of “children’s toys” in common areas is unreasonable; however, a rule requiring persons of all ages keep bikes, strollers, wagons, etc. inside a unit is reasonable because it applies equally to all.

So... talk to your insurer about safety issues. I'd be curious what they'd say about allowing unaccompanied tots in the pool area. What happens in communities that serve alcohol in some areas? Don't they have to keep minors out of that area or risk losing their liquor license?

My understanding is this remains fine. From https://coultersierra.com/wp-content/uploads/Coulter-Sierra_Newsletter_April-2015.pdf:


Current HUD opinions for the most part have found
restrictions limiting the use of a pool by children under
the age of 14, 13 or 12 without adult supervision to be
reasonably related to the health, safety and welfare of
the child. Any age limitations above that will call into
question as to whether or not the concern is over a child
being a competent swimmer so much as it is limiting
the use of the pool by children. Please note, however,
there are some circumstances where a higher age limit
may be acceptable, such as the use of gym equipment
or weights. Furthermore, case law involving FHA
complaints is constantly evolving so it is important to
monitor the current case law to ensure compliance with
the FHA.

I know the above law firm overview is dated but I think if HUD radically changed its position, we would have heard about it.

I am surprised the requirement is not being accompanied by an adult over the age of say 18.

If you want me to check recent HUD conciliation agreements, ask and I will take a look.

Remember that if someone complains, mentioning familial status discrimination (meaning inter alia the family has children), the board can always send this to the HOA attorney. Fair housing nonprofits and HUD alike want complainants to always ask the HOA if it will change its policy before submitting a formal complaint to the nonprofit of HUD.

Prohibiting the storage of any items on the common areas is enforceable.

Here's where I get confused. I see rules requiring young children to be accompanied by older persons all the time. The lawyer's blog post that I quoted just mentioned "common areas" - it didn't specify which common areas. Are elevators, gyms, fitness rooms, etc. not considered common areas? Why are these different for purposes of the law? Clearly they're different in terms of safety risks, and the rules make sense.

On the other hand, maybe the lawyer I quoted was mistaken ...

Must. Resolve. Cognitive. Dissonance.

My take:

I believe this HOA attorney was not making a blanket statement or conveying a "rule of law" deriving from case law nationwide. I think the attorney was trying to say that at times, requiring the supervision of children on common areas has been held to be unreasonable and a violation of the FHA. But one cannot make a blanket statement on such a requirement. The details and circumstances of any restriction are important.

An "at times" maybe should appear at the end of the bolded sentence?

By my reading HUD is okay with some supervision requirements in some circumstances. The pool area is one such circumstance, but even there, the rule cannot be overly restrictive to kids. What "overly restrictive" is just depends. By my reading LoriM15's pool rule would be easily okay by HUD standards. Caveat: I do see some chatter from attorneys saying it is better to have a requirement for supervision of anyone who is not a proficient swimmer. Then the restriction is totally kid-blind. And probably completely unenforceable. E.g. 45-year-old John Brown cannot swim, cannot keep himself afloat, et cetera. He wades in the shallow end of the 8-foot deep (at the deep end) of the pool regularly despite this.

The familial status anti-discrimination clauses were added to the FHA in 1988. Why were they added? Because some housing providers and I guess sometimes some subdivision covenants were being anti-kid. The cost to society (it is said) was that kids were being denied access to, for one, better public schools and safer neighborhoods.

Now the case law has expanded vastly on what is anti-kid (under the terms of the FHA) and so unlawful discrimination. It's almost as if a HOA manager or HOA board member looking cross-eyed at any kid will get HUD asking questions.

I found it interesting that even LoriM15's HOA got slammed some years ago. My former condo got the snot beaten out of it (deservedly so for inappropriate kid regulations and anti-kid statements of all kinds) about a decade ago as well.