The state Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that private, women-only exercise areas in gyms open otherwise to both men and women violate a state anti-discrimination law.
Chief Justice Richard Robinson called the decision that immediately bans private spaces based on sex or religion in public places, a “significant question of first impression” that turned on whether there can be gender-based exceptions to the state’s progressive anti-discrimination laws.
But in the same decision, Robinson, writing for a unanimous court, suggested a blanket prohibition against all sex-based privacy could have unintended consequences and a final decision should be left to the state legislature.
“Thus, the sensitivity of the determination of where to limit antidiscrimination protections, along with evolving contemporary understandings of the terms ”gender” and ”sex” … renders this issue uniquely well suited for consideration in the first instance by the legislature, which is the policy-making branch of our government.”
The court decided the narrow question of whether private exercise areas for women are discriminatory after two male fitness buffs complained to the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities that they had to wait in line to use exercise equipment in the crowded, coed portion of their gyms, while there was no waiting in the mostly empty spaces restricted to women.
But complicating the question were broader concerns that long have been at the center of the civil rights and women’s movements. Must everyone be treated equally under the state’s progressive anti-discrimination laws? Or are some groups, such as women, entitled to greater protections under the law as compensation for historic discrimination or to protect religious belief?
The court was also asked to confront changing attitudes toward gender. When the court and the legislature outlawed sex-based discrimination four decades ago, it was presumed then that one was either a man or a woman. There is understanding now that gender identity can be based on something other than biology.
A hearing officer for the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ruled against the men, saying there is a third exception implied in the public accommodation law — the right of women to gender privacy. Such a right, the hearing officer said, is compensation for past discrimination and is consistent with the intent of the public accommodation law, which was written to remedy past injustice.
The commission, which appointed the hearing officer, then disputed her conclusion. It took a more traditional view of privacy and discrimination, arguing the intent of the state law is equality for women, not preferential treatment — a position taken in the past by the National Organization for Women. The commission appealed to the Superior Court, lost, and appealed again.
The court said it based its decision on a strict reading of the “plain language” of the public accommodation law. The law “expressly” creates two sex-based exceptions to its anti-discrimination provisions — certain sleeping accommodations and bathrooms or locker rooms.
“There is no implied customer gender privacy exception to the statute,” the court said.
The court recognized concerns that its strict reading of the law could lead to “absurd or bizarre results” because of its unequivocal prohibition of women-only places such as dressing rooms, lactation rooms and domestic violence shelters. Interfaith groups, among others, told the court that some women are prohibited from exercising with men for religious reasons.
“We disagree,” the court said. “First, although such facilities are not at issue in this appeal, it is not at all clear that they would not fall within the existing statutory exceptions for bathrooms, locker rooms, and sleeping accommodations, as interpreted using our rules of statutory construction.”
Others may disagree, the court said, suggesting the legislature take up the question.
“Nevertheless, we acknowledge that our analysis of the plain and unambiguous statutory text … may lead to a result that might well have been unintended by the legislature, including with respect to its application in hypothetical scenarios involving lactation rooms or dressing rooms, as posited by the defendants, the referee, and the trial court,” the court said.
Connecticut Supreme Court gym ruling by Helen Bennett on Scribd
