Would you want to know if your gym was trans-affirming
before you paid for your membership? Would it bother you to share a locker room
with people whose biological sex was different than yours? One gym’s trans-affirming
policy has been up for debate in the courts for years. Now the Michigan Court
of Appeals has said that the unwritten policy could have violated the Michigan
Consumer Protection Act.
Locker Rooms Become Controversial When Trans* Rights Are Involved
When it comes to gender identity and transgender individuals,
bathrooms are controversial. Those opposed to LGBT-inclusive policies complain about
the threat of “a man who identified as a woman” in a restroom or locker room
that aligns with his or her gender identity. But what does a trans-affirming
policy have to do with the Michigan Consumer Protection Act?
Woman Sues Planet Fitness for Unwritten Trans-Affirming Policy
Yvette Cormier joined Planet Fitness on January 28, 2015.
One month later she encountered a transgender woman in the women’s facilities. Concerned
with what she called a “man in the women’s locker room”, she went to the front
desk to complain. There she was told that the gym had a trans-affirming policy
that allows any member to use the facility that corresponds with his or her self-identified
gender identity. Cormier called the corporate office about the issue, only to
be told that Planet Fitness has a policy of not judging whether a person is a
man or a woman when using its facilities. Cormier then returned to Planet
Fitness several times to warn other gym users. Eventually the gym canceled her
membership for causing disruption.
Cormier sued Planet Fitness – both the local franchise and
the corporate entity. Among the several legal theories, she claimed Planet
Fitness had violated the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA). The trial
court dismissed her claims, as did the Court of Appeals. But the Michigan
Supreme Court said her claims warranted closer attention and remanded the case
back to the Michigan Court of Appeals for further consideration.
Michigan Consumer Protection Act Defends Consumers from Business’s Misrepresentations
The Michigan Consumer Protection Act defends against many
ways businesses try to pull the wool over consumers’ eyes. However, in most
cases the law removes intent. While many consumer protection initiatives are
targeting businesses that are intentionally manipulating consumers for their
own benefit, the law allows lawsuits when merchants unintentionally, even accidentally,
violate the MCPA.
Does an Unwritten Trans-Affirming Policy Violate the MCPA?
In this case, Cormier said Planet Fitness violated the MCPA
by:
- Advertising services without intending to provide them
- Causing confusion or misunderstanding of a legal right, obligation, or remedy
- Causing consumers to waive rights, benefits, or immunities
- Making different oral and written statements
- Failing to reveal a material fact which misleads consumers
- Making a consumer believe a material fact is different than it actually is
The Court of Appeals quickly disregarded claims relating to
Cormier’s legal rights and remedies. It said that there was no conflict between
the oral and written statements of the company. Nor could the fact that Cormier
disagreed with the way the gym identified men and women amount to misleading
advertising.
However, the court could not so easily dispose of the claims
relating to material facts. When Cormier joined the gym, its representative
said that the gym had separate restrooms and locker rooms for men and women.
The representative did not say how
admission to these facilities would be monitored – by gender identity or
biological sex. The court said, given Cormier’s response to learning about the
gym’s trans-affirming policy, that distinction could be viewed as “important to
the transaction.” If Cormier knew that trans women would be permitted to share her
locker room, she would likely not have purchased the gym membership.
Ultimately, it was not Planet Fitness’s trans-affirming
policy that violated the MCPA. However, the court said the fact that the company did not
clarify its definition of “woman” may have been an omission of a material fact
that caused a consumer to enter into a transaction she otherwise wouldn’t have,
making the unwritten and undisclosed policy a violation of Michigan consumer
protection laws.
Dani K. Liblang is a consumer protection
attorney at the Liblang Law Firm, PC, in Birmingham, Michigan. She helps consumers
who are manipulated into contracts they wouldn’t otherwise agree to. If you
have been lied to by a service provider, contact the Liblang Law Firm
for a free consultation.
1 comment:
Awesome post….Thanks for sharing this awesome article Keep posted.
moodle nottingham
moodle maisonneuve
Post a Comment