When laws conflict…freedom vs tyranny needs to be considered.
New wrinkle in
case of man in Planet Fitness women's showers, What does 'judgment-free zone' really mean? By Bob Unruh,
7/31/16, WND
A judge who dismissed a complaint
filed by woman against a Planet Fitness health club in Michigan after she found
a man in the women’s locker room made a serious mistake, according to an appeal
of the case filed with the Michigan Court of Appeals.
The judge said the woman
could not complain because she had been told of the company’s “judgment-free
zone,” but the appeal points out that she was not told that meant men would be
allowed in the ladies’ facilities.
“The trial court
erroneously held that ‘plaintiff may have reasonably expected only women would
be present in the women’s locker room, even in the common areas; however, she
could no longer reasonably expect only women would use the facility after being
told about the ‘judgment-free zone’ policy,” the judge said.
The appeal was filed by Kallman Legal on behalf of Yvette Cormier, whose membership
in the club was terminated when she complained about the presence of a man and
warned other women about the situation.
The appeal states:
“There was subterfuge in this case. Mrs. Cormier is at a loss as to how she
could have possibly known about defendants’ hidden, unwritten policy after
being told of the magic words ‘judgment-free zone.’ Despite the membership
agreement being completely void of any language describing a ‘no judgment
policy,’ let alone that such a policy would include the idea that men can use
the women’s locker rooms and showers, the trial court held that Mrs. Cormier
should have known better.”
The trial court decision
was from Midland County Circuit Judge Michael J. Beale, who ruled last winter
after Cormier filed the original complaint that Planet Fitness policy allows
biological men to have “unfettered use of the women’s locker room, including
showers, lockers, and all other aspects.”
Beale wrote that because
Cormier left the locker before any “actual use” happened, her claim had to be
dismissed.
WND reported when the case originally developed that Cormier alleged Planet
Fitness breached her club-use
contract and violated the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act when it created a
policy for its health club that allows a “judgment-free zone,” where a person
can use a gender-specific facility according to his or her “gender identity.”
After Cormier
encountered the man and complained to the company without results, she was left
without options and went to the facility to warn other women about the fact a
man had been found in the women’s lockers.
“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,” the complaint said.
The issue of males in
private facilities originally intended for use by women has spread under the
Obama administration’s advocacy for privileges for homosexuals, lesbians and
transgenders.
The Obama bureaucracy
even has ordered schools to open up bathrooms and changing facilities or lose
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.
The company had publicly
stated its “judgment-free zone” policy, but then terminated Cormier’s
membership when she was in the process of telling other customers about it.
The appeal explains that
Michigan precedent is that there “can never be a waiver of the right of
privacy, in the absence of knowledge and consent of the person entitled to
waive.”
“There was no language
in the membership agreement that informed Mrs. Cormier of defendants’
privacy-invading policy. Nor did defendants ever inform Mrs. Cormier that she
would have no privacy from men in her locker room when she signed up for the
gym.
“It is impossible for
Mrs. Cormier to have consented to defendants invading her privacy through their
hostile policy because she did not know about it. … the trial court provided no
reasoning as to how Planet Fitness’ slogan could have possibly provided such
notice. The truth is that defendants’ policy was just as hidden from Mrs.
Cormier.”
The appeal continued:
“Undressing, showering, and using the restroom is a private matter. Mrs.
Cormier had an expectation of privacy in the women’s locker room and showers.
Defendants’ policy to allow men to use those same facilities invaded her
privacy and culminated in a biological man being present in the locker room
with her.
“Plaintiff believes that
a reasonable person would find defendants’ policy highly offensive, and she has
the right for a jury to make that determination.” The main problem needs to be
the focal point, the appeal states.
“It is perplexing that
the trial court held, as a matter of law, a policy that encourages and enables
men and women to get naked together, shower together, and change clothes
together is not sexual in nature. In any other context, an adult
biological man who showers naked with an unrelated 13-year-old girl would be
sexual (and possibly criminal) in nature. … Why not here?”
The case also raises issues
of invasion of privacy, state law violations and denial of access to public
accommodations.
“Further, defendants
violated their own so-called ‘no judgment’ policy by negatively judging Mrs.
Cormier for her normal and healthy desire for privacy, security, and freedom of
sexual harassment,” the appeal explains.
Comments
This is a
typical Obama attack using Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky as the
playbook. The TV show, Naked and Afraid
and Naked Dating are part of this “propaganda indoctrination”. Privacy should win out in this battle unless
we’re really stupid. Trading sexual
harassment for transgender inclusion is not an option. Discrimination laws are turning out to
include fines and law suits for those who object to anything the “protected
classes” demand. They are all minorities
and should not be allowed to abuse the majority. Freedom of association is at issue for
businesses and individuals. Reasonable accommodation would have stopped the
bakery from being fined $135.000 for refusing to make a Gay Wedding cake. One Gay Bakery per town would have been the
answer to solve this problem. Forcing
all citizens to become “naked and afraid” won’t wash.
Transgender
is a “special needs” case. They should
be recognized as either male, female or “in transit”. Individual bathrooms with door locks should
be built for the “truly shy” and the “in transit” transgenders as they move
back and forth in their gender confusion.
All of this
is costing taxpayers and consumers a fortune.
Public school and business facility costs will be even more
unsustainable. Homeschooling and
internet shopping will become even more popular. Americans are being taught to stay home. The
cost of starting a business
Norb
Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment