A Court Victory

Here in Connecticut we fended off another attack to the gender inclusive non-discrimination law. The case was about sex segregated facilities in gyms, even through the case wasn’t about us per se we were part of the discussion. The case involved the carving a "gender privacy" exception to the gender inclusive law, PA 11-55 by a lower court.

Lawsuit opposing women-only workout areas goes before CT Supreme Court
CT Post
By Nicholas Rondinone
May 5, 2021


The Connecticut Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit that claims gyms and exercise facilities with designated areas where only women can work out discriminated against men.

In a 90-minute hearing, the justices heard from both parties on whether gyms violates a statute prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations or if these separate areas are exemptions like separate female and male bathrooms and locker rooms.

They did not issue a ruling before going into recess until separate hearings will be held Thursday.

The appeal before the state’s highest court, which followed complaints to the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities from two men who exercised at the Edge Fitness and Club Fitness, seeks to overturn a lower court ruling that having areas in a gym exclusively for women does not violate the statute.

Well the court finally ruled on the case today (Speedy justice!).

Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Edge Fitness et al.
GLAD

Overview

GLAD has submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Connecticut Supreme Court in Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Edge Fitness et al., a case in which a male customer at a gym sued to challenge a women-only workout area. GLAD filed the brief to ensure that the Court’s ruling does not inadvertently undermine Connecticut’s nondiscrimination law, including for transgender people.

Because current Connecticut law does not authorize sex-segregated gyms or workout areas, the trial court in this case created a new, vague, and ill-defined implied right to “gender privacy” to rule that a women-only workout area was lawful. GLAD’s brief argues that the creation of an implied right to “gender privacy” that is not authorized by any statutory language will create a substantial risk that it will be utilized in other contexts that will undermine the state’s nondiscrimination laws. Privacy has all too often been used as a guise to hide prejudice and discomfort with LGBTQ people. The invocation of “gender privacy,” for example, has been relied upon for decades as an unfounded justification of those who objected to the presence of transgender people in gender-separated spaces. It has also been used as a reason to exclude openly gay and lesbian servicemembers from the military. The creation of a new “gender privacy” right could even encourage the reassertion of gender segregation in previously male-dominated spaces.

GLAD recognizes the importance of workout spaces for women that are free from harassment and objectification. Any change to Connecticut law, however, must come from the legislature which can craft a narrow exception rather than through a broad new judicially-created right.

GLAD’s brief was submitted by attorneys Bennett Klein, Jennifer Levi, and Gary Buseck and Kenneth Bartschi of Horton, Dowd, Bartschi & Levesque, P.C. of Hartford. The brief was also joined by Lambda Legal and Connecticut TransAdvocacy Coalition.

It is not a big win but an important win, it stopped our protection from being whittled away.