Post by hisno1girl on Mar 24, 2015 20:34:53 GMT -5
This issue has been one of the mostly hotly debated topics on MLive in recent memory. I don't read the comments, but this is exploding all over the place.
MIDLAND, MI -- The transgender-friendly locker room policy of national gym chain Planet Fitness has led to a lawsuit in Michigan.
Yvette Cormier of Midland County is suing Planet Fitness in Midland County Circuit Court for more than $25,000. The Kallman Legal Group of Lansing is representing Cormier.
Planet Fitness canceled Cormier's membership March 4 after she complained to fellow gym members over several days about seeing a transgender woman using the locker room.
While Cormier referred to the individual as a man, she said an employee told her the individual in question identified as a woman. Carlotta Sklodowska later came forward, saying she was the transgender woman in question.
"Ms. Cormier was wrongfully denied the benefits of her contract with Planet Fitness and wrongfully denied the use of the public accommodations at Defendant's gym because she objected to Defendant's unknown policy," a press release from Kallman Legal Group states. "The policy allows men who self-identify as women to use the women's facilities, including the women's locker room and showers."
The law firm also states that the case is also relevant to the possible expansion of Michigan's civil rights laws.
"Mrs. Cormier has filed this lawsuit to protect Michigan women and children and to hold Planet Fitness accountable for its irresponsible policy and actions," the press release states. "This case further illustrates the potential harm caused by adding the proposed new categories of sexual orientation/gender identity to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act."
Midland County Circuit Court confirmed the complaint was filed Monday, March 23, and is assigned to Judge Michael J. Beale. A date for the case was not immediately set as additional paperwork must be submitted beforehand.
McCall Gosselin, public relations director for Planet Fitness, said the company would not comment.
"As a matter of policy, we do not comment on pending litigation," Gosselin said.
The 15-page summons and complaint outlines Cormier's telling of the events leading up to her policy cancellation. It also claims that Cormier has suffered in several ways because of the membership cancellation.
The complaint lists the alleged damages she suffered as "loss of use of gym facilities," "fear about using the gym facilities," "embarrassment and humiliation," "severe emotional distress" and "damage to reputation."
It also includes the line "all other damages that reasonably flow from Defendants' outrageous behavior."
The lawsuit claims Cormier's rights were violated in seven counts, each of which requests restitution in excess of $25,000, plus all applicable costs.
The counts include breach of contract, an exemplary damages claim, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and three counts of sexual harassment under the Elliott-Larsen Act.
According to the summons and complaint, Cormier suffered the following damages listed under the count of exemplary damages:
The law firm has set up a website regarding the case at kallmanlegal.com/planetfitness.
Defendants on the lawsuit are listed as "PF - Midland, LLC" based in Dearborn and "Planet Fitness Holdings, LLC; Planet Fitness Equipment, LLC; Planet Fitness NAF, LLC" based in New Hampshire.
So, I'm trying to play devil's advocate and think of what she really thinks the harm will be. I suppose her strongest argument is that a little girl could see a stranger's penis and that's inappropriate.
I guess I don't see why that's any different from seeing female genitalia, but on the other hand, we do have segregated dressing rooms.
Is that her strongest argument? How would you answer it?
So, I'm trying to play devil's advocate and think of what she really thinks the harm will be. I suppose her strongest argument is that a little girl could see a stranger's penis and that's inappropriate.
I guess I don't see why that's any different from seeing female genitalia, but on the other hand, we do have segregated dressing rooms.
Is that her strongest argument? How would you answer it?
But why are small children in the locker room? Is it like the Y with family activities, community pool?
So, I'm trying to play devil's advocate and think of what she really thinks the harm will be. I suppose her strongest argument is that a little girl could see a stranger's penis and that's inappropriate.
I guess I don't see why that's any different from seeing female genitalia, but on the other hand, we do have segregated dressing rooms.
Is that her strongest argument? How would you answer it?
But why are small children in the locker room? Is it like the Y with family activities, community pool?
I don't really know, do those gyms have kids programs? I don't think they do, but maybe?
Could a tween or a teen be a guest? My gym allows guests over the age of 12 with parents.
So, I'm trying to play devil's advocate and think of what she really thinks the harm will be. I suppose her strongest argument is that a little girl could see a stranger's penis and that's inappropriate.
I guess I don't see why that's any different from seeing female genitalia, but on the other hand, we do have segregated dressing rooms.
Is that her strongest argument? How would you answer it?
But why are small children in the locker room? Is it like the Y with family activities, community pool?
I have never taken my girls into the locker room at our gym nor have I seen other people's children there, it might be against the rules.
So, I'm trying to play devil's advocate and think of what she really thinks the harm will be. I suppose her strongest argument is that a little girl could see a stranger's penis and that's inappropriate.
I guess I don't see why that's any different from seeing female genitalia, but on the other hand, we do have segregated dressing rooms.
Is that her strongest argument? How would you answer it?
But why are small children in the locker room? Is it like the Y with family activities, community pool?
If it were, would a non-inclusive locker room policy hold up anyway?
I'm wondering if we're headed toward individual unit bathrooms and shower facilities everywhere. Like dressing rooms in stores are now.
So, I'm trying to play devil's advocate and think of what she really thinks the harm will be. I suppose her strongest argument is that a little girl could see a stranger's penis and that's inappropriate.
I guess I don't see why that's any different from seeing female genitalia, but on the other hand, we do have segregated dressing rooms.
Is that her strongest argument? How would you answer it?
For argument's sake, let's say a transgender person poses a risk to children. It still didn't cause any harm to HER so PF being "wrong" on that part still wouldn't result in her being owed any damages. Did she also seek to have PF change their policies?
And really, how much attention is she paying to others in the locker room. I don't keep track of people when I am there and if I do have to change, I am pretty much just focusing on that.
So, I'm trying to play devil's advocate and think of what she really thinks the harm will be. I suppose her strongest argument is that a little girl could see a stranger's penis and that's inappropriate.
I guess I don't see why that's any different from seeing female genitalia, but on the other hand, we do have segregated dressing rooms.
Is that her strongest argument? How would you answer it?
For argument's sake, let's say a transgender person poses a risk to children. It still didn't cause any harm to HER so PF being "wrong" on that part still wouldn't result in her being owed any damages. Did she also seek to have PF change their policies?
I assume she is, but I don't know for sure. I agree that my hypothetical doesn't apply to her case, or even in general if kids aren't allowed in changing areas.
For the record, I don't think spotting a penis in the wild would be a huge deal at any age, in the normal changing-in-a-locker room setting. Or for a boy to notice that some man has different genitalia or bound breasts.
If that makes people uncomfortable, that's the price of being in society. It's not the job of the individual to cover up to make you more comfortable. IMO.
For argument's sake, let's say a transgender person poses a risk to children. It still didn't cause any harm to HER so PF being "wrong" on that part still wouldn't result in her being owed any damages. Did she also seek to have PF change their policies?
I assume she is, but I don't know for sure. I agree that my hypothetical doesn't apply to her case, or even in general if kids aren't allowed in changing areas.
For the record, I don't think spotting a penis in the wild would be a huge deal at any age, in the normal changing-in-a-locker room setting. Or for a boy to notice that some man has different genitalia or bound breasts.
If that makes people uncomfortable, that's the price of bring in society. It's not the job of the individual to cover up to make you more comfortable. IMO.
Oh sure, I'm just trying to figure out how quickly this can get thrown out.
Is PF even required to have separate gendered dressing rooms? It's a private club after all.
So, I'm trying to play devil's advocate and think of what she really thinks the harm will be. I suppose her strongest argument is that a little girl could see a stranger's penis and that's inappropriate.
I guess I don't see why that's any different from seeing female genitalia, but on the other hand, we do have segregated dressing rooms.
Is that her strongest argument? How would you answer it?
Well, isn't this a slippery slope? Are we going to prohibit dads from taking their little girls into the bathroom because they might see men at the urinal?
Or how about women with younger male children. Wouldn't they be similarly "scarred" by accompanying their moms into the locker room?
Do we now say women can't breastfeed outside of bathroom stalls lest a child inadvertently see their breasts? Are we going to prohibit public family bathrooms because then a child then might be seeing his or her opposite gender parent's genitalia?
This is a locker room. It's an appropriate place for changing clothes. If someone is behaving lewdly or exhibiting inappropriate behavior, that's a different story. But if someone who identifies as a female is changing her clothes, there should be no more offense taken than for any other person who identifies as a female changing her clothes.
So, I'm trying to play devil's advocate and think of what she really thinks the harm will be. I suppose her strongest argument is that a little girl could see a stranger's penis and that's inappropriate.
I guess I don't see why that's any different from seeing female genitalia, but on the other hand, we do have segregated dressing rooms.
Is that her strongest argument? How would you answer it?
Well, isn't this a slippery slope? Are we going to prohibit dads from taking their little girls into the bathroom because they might see men at the urinal?
Or how about women with younger male children. Wouldn't they be similarly "scarred" by accompanying their moms into the locker room?
Do we now say women can't breastfeed outside of bathroom stalls lest a child inadvertently see their breasts? Are we going to prohibit public family bathrooms because then a child then might be seeing his or her opposite gender parent's genitalia?
This is a locker room. It's an appropriate place for changing clothes. If someone is behaving lewdly or exhibiting inappropriate behavior, that's a different story. But if someone who identifies as a female is changing her clothes, there should be no more offense taken than for any other person who identifies as a female changing her clothes.
Those are excellent answers. I suppose the slippery slope argument could go either way, though: why have gender-specific changing rooms at all, then?
People are so weird about nudity, esp non- sexual nudity. Who cares if someone catches a glimpse? If you or your kid have questions after seeing a transgendered person in a locker room, there are readily-available answers.