Sign posted July 2011 |
The landlord gave the Ohio Civil Rights Commission conflicting reasons as to why she posted the sign. First Hein claimed the sign had been posted prior to the biracial child using the pool, but several witnesses responded that Hein posted the racist sign only after the biracial child used the pool. Then, Hein claimed she was an antique collector, and she posted the sign because it was a gift. Again, several witnesses refuted Hein's reasoning by responding that Hein posted the sign to "protect her assets" because the girl's hair made the pool "cloudy."
The Commission decided the sign "restricts the social interaction between Caucasians and African-Americans and reinforces discriminatory action aimed at oppressing people of color." This case will be referred to the Ohio Attorney General's Office and an administrative law judge to assess possible penalties and determine whether punitive damages should be awarded.
Read the full story here.