A Michigan company running health clubs ejected a woman and canceled her membership after she warned other women that she had found a man using the women’s locker room – with the company’s permission.
And then a Michigan judge tossed her lawsuit over the ejection, telling her she had no grounds for complaint.
The result will be an appeal of the case to the higher courts, according to a law firm working on the dispute.
A statement from lawyers at Kallman Legal Group explained, “It is clear that the appellate courts in Michigan will have the final say in this case.”
Appeal paperwork was promised no later than Jan. 26.
The original action was filed on behalf of Yvette Cormier, who alleged Planet Fitness breached the contract, violated the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and more when it created a policy for its health club that allows a “judgment-free zone,” where any person identifying as either sex can use the locker room associated with that physical gender.
Thus, an open door when a “large, tall man” was a guest at the club and alleged he identified as a woman. He went into the women’s facility, where Cormier encountered him.
She complained to the company and, left without additional options, went into the facility to warn other women about the fact that a man had been found using it.
“Defendants contacted plaintiff on March 4, 2015, requesting she stop warning others of defendants’ ‘judgment-free zone’ policy. Plaintiff was given an ultimatum to either accept the policy or her membership would be terminated. She refused to submit to the ‘judgment-free zone’ policy; therefore, defendants terminated plaintiffs’ Planet Fitness membership.”
“Judge Beale’s opinion state’s that because Ms. Cormier left the locker room before any actual use of the locker room by the man occurred, her claim must be dismissed. Contrary to the plain language of the preamble of the Elliott-Larsen Act, Judge Beale ruled that a policy alone is insufficient to create a hostile environment.”
The law firm’s statement continued, “His opinion further ignores the fact that Planet Fitness’ policy allowing the presence of a man in the women’s locker room when women are in various stages of undress is offensive behavior in and of itself. A woman should not have to wait until she is viewed naked by a man, or until worse objectionable behavior occurs, in order to secure legal protection.”
The issue of males in private facilities originally intended for use by women has flooded across the nation under the Obama administration’s advocacy for privileges for homosexuals, lesbians and transgenders.
The Obama bureaucracy even has ordered schools to allow that very action on pain of loss of federal funding.
Beale’s order noted he was not determining “whether transgender persons have any protected rights for the use of a locker room facility.”
He said the issue was whether a plaintiff has a cause of action against a business that is allowing a man to use a women’s locker room.
In fact, the company had publicly stated its “judgement-free zone” policy, but then terminated Cormier’s membership when she was in the process of telling other customers about it.
Beale said there was no invasion of privacy because she viewed the “large, tall man” in the common area – not “in a stall that can be closed and locked.”
He said the woman no longer could reasonably expect to see only women in a women’s room after being told of Planet Fitness’ “judgment-free zone.”
There also was no violation of the ELCRA discrimination statute, the judge said.
And since the man never actually propositioned or harassed her with sexual advances or “conduct” of a sexual nature,” there were no grounds for a harassment complaint, the judge said.
Note: Those wishing to contact Planet Fitness may do so by clicking here.