May 2024 Coach's Quiz

COACH’S ANSWERS & EXPLANATIONS

QUESTION #1

Correct answer: a

Reason: Rules #1 and #2 come into play in this situation

Rule #1: Ensure that Fitness Center Rules Are Reasonable to Promote Safety

Rule #2: Don’t Bar Children or the Disabled from Using the Fitness Center

A fitness center rule that has the effect of discriminating against a protected class may still be legitimate to the extent it promotes a compelling, nondiscriminatory objective in a way that is only as restrictive as necessary to promote the objective. The ban on kids taking pilates classes meets the first part of the test but not the second. The rule is based on safety; however, a blanket ban on kids is unreasonably restrictive. There are less restrictive alternatives available that would serve the safety interest, such as allowing kids to take the class with adult supervision. So, a. is the right answer. 

Wrong answers explained:

b. sounds good but is still wrong. The language about basing safety policies on objective sources demonstrating risk is true. The problem is that having a legitimate safety purpose isn’t enough. To justify restricting children from using a fitness center or any other amenity, the rule must also be a reasonable way to accomplish the objective. The reason b. is the wrong answer is that deliberately excluding children or any other protected class is unreasonable. 

c. is wrong because while industry standards and how other fitness centers deal with the pilates issue are relevant to determining the reasonableness of a safety rule, these criteria are cancelled out by the fact that a blanket exclusion of children is a blatant form of direct discrimination that the law prohibits.    

QUESTION #2

Correct answer: c

Reason: The principles discussed in Rule #3 apply to this scenario

Rule #3: Be Wary of “Adult Supervision” Rules

While keeping kids from doing pilates without proper supervision is a legitimate safety purpose, the key to compliance is to create a rule that will accomplish the purpose in the least restrictive way possible. The third formulation is the least restrictive because it boils things down to the essentials—people who are at unusual risk of injury must be supervised by people who know what they’re doing. You’d also need objective criteria justifying your determination of who’s unusually vulnerable, including children and individuals with medical conditions like asthma or cardiac arrythmia. So, c. is the right answer.

Wrong answers explained:

a. isn’t a terrible choice because it mirrors the local ordinance in setting the age at which supervision is needed at under 14. But HUD and courts are free to question whether a local requirement is reasonable. The other problem with the rule is that it requires supervision by “an adult,” which unreasonably excludes people ages 17 and under from supervising even if they’re capable of doing so.

Choice b. is even worse because it requires supervision by not only an adult but also a parent or legal guardian, which unreasonably excludes siblings, babysitters, friends, and non-parental relatives, even if they’re crackerjack practitioners of pilates. 

QUESTION #3

Correct answer: d

Reason: Rule #5 comes into play in this situation

Rule #5: Prominently Post Fitness Center Rules and the Basis for Them

A rule barring tenants with a heart condition from using the sauna based on a bona fide manufacturer’s warning would likely not constitute disability discrimination since it’s reasonable and promotes safety. But if tenants don’t know about the rule, they may object when you try to enforce it; and if they don’t know why the rule is in place, they might feel as if they’re being singled out because of their medical condition. That’s why it’s advisable to not only post the rules in a conspicuous location near the equipment or device to which they relate, but also explain that the rule is based on health and safety. Had the community taken these actions, the tenant probably wouldn’t have tried to go into the sauna and the whole kerfuffle could have been avoided. And even if the tenant deliberately defied the rule, the warning sign would have been helpful evidence showing that the community’s rules and enforcement efforts were reasonable. So, d., “all of the above,” is the right answer.