Can We Turn Away an 18-Year-Old Camper?

Many camps share a common experience: Under various circumstances, a parent calls and requests to enroll an 18- or 19-year-old in the program, leading camp to question its legal obligations. Are we allowed to say that camp is only for those under 18 and turn away adult participants? 

While the answer is likely yes, the issue is not without legal nuance. This article briefly examines the relevant legal considerations. We begin with how “camp” is defined in the law, then turn to the Americans with Disabilities Act, and close with a discussion of state civil rights (or "public accommodation") laws. 

Statutory Definition of Camp

Taking New York as a representative state, we begin with the definition of the word “camp.” The New York statutory definition of “children’s overnight camp” refers to a program for individuals under 18 years old. Along the same lines, the definition of “summer day camp” refers to children under 16 years old.

While I haven’t conducted a national survey, I suspect the laws of many other states look quite similar. The law recognizes that children’s camps are intended for children. We will come back to this point momentarily.

ADA Considerations

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) generally prohibits camps from imposing policies or eligibility criteria that tend to screen out campers with disabilities. As I’ve previously explained, camps are allowed to have neutral safety policies of general application (i.e., policies that apply equally to all campers). A policy that a children’s camp is for children, and not adult participants, seems to fall squarely within this general framework. 

But what about the obligation to provide reasonable modifications to campers with disabilities?

Under the ADA, we have an obligation to modify our policies to accommodate individuals with disabilities as long as the modifications don’t fundamentally alter the nature of the camp program or create an undue burden on camp. In a typical camp setting, our staffing models, housing setup, activities, insurance assumptions, and child-protection policies are all based on the premise that participants are children. Adding adults into the program would likely be a fundamental alteration and/or undue burden.

While I have yet to see camp-specific precedent, courts have considered this question in the context of high school athletics. For example, in the recent First Circuit Court of Appeals case, Doe v. Rhode Island Interscholastic League, a high school athletic league had a rule that students can’t play for more than eight semesters; this meant that students with disabilities who repeated grades could exhaust their eligibility before graduation and be unable to continue playing when they were older than the typical high school student. The court held that waiving this rule for a student with a disability would fundamentally alter the athletics program. Notably, the court explained that other courts have “uniformly held” that age-based limitations on eligibility are an “essential aspect of high school athletics programs across the country.” 

By analogy, children’s camp being for children is an essential aspect of camp. Indeed, this principle is embedded in the very definition of the word “camp” under state law. 

With all that said, we're still obligated to conduct an individualized assessment in all cases when a family requests modifications based on a disability. If an 18- or 19-year-old applicant with a disability requests an exception to camp's age policy, we should evaluate the request and either grant it, or if applicable, document the reason the requested modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the program or create an undue burden. [FN 1]

Public Accommodation Laws

In addition to ADA considerations, there’s also a public accommodation question. Sticking with New York as our sample state, the New York Human Rights Law prohibits discrimination by places of public accommodation based on a list of protected characteristics. This list includes race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, military status, sex, disability, marital status, and status as a victim of domestic violence. 

But do you notice what's missing? Age is not included on the list (even though age is included elsewhere in the statute). Once again, I haven’t conducted a national survey of these laws, but I suspect that many of them are similar to New York’s. Public accommodations (including camps) can make reasonable age-based decisions about participation; a children’s program can be limited to children. [FN 2]

Conclusion

Simply put, a camp may define its program as being only for minors. If someone seeks an exception because of disability, the camp should consider the request on an individualized basis, but the ADA does not require the camp to fundamentally alter the nature of the program by converting a youth program into an adult program. 

***

Footnotes

FN 1.  Whenever a camp turns away a camper, it can raise issues surrounding disability discrimination; camps are wise to consult with counsel before making disability-related decisions that don’t align with a family’s request. 

FN 2. Camps should still check applicable state and local law. Some jurisdictions may define protected classes differently. But using New York as the example, the public accommodations law does not appear to prohibit a youth program from drawing a reasonable age line.