Update to this story.
Via CNS News:
The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a woman whose Planet Fitness membership was canceled after she objected to a transgender woman – a biological male who claims to be a female — being in the women’s locker room.
The appeals court said Planet Fitness had potentially misled the woman because it did not inform her of its unwritten locker room policy when she joined the gym, and the case has been sent back to the Midland, Mich., trial court that had first ruled against the woman.
In a related case, Planet Fitness canceled another woman’s membership in Florida after she objected to a transgender person being in the women’s locker room.
In 2015, Yvette Cormier from Michigan saw a transgender “woman” in the Planet Fitness women’s locker room and informed the front desk. Cormier was told that it is Planet Fitness’ policy to allow people to use whichever locker room corresponds to the sex they identify with.
After learning about the policy, Cormier informed other women at the gym about the policy. As a result, Planet Fitness canceled her membership, claiming she had violated the gym’s “judgment-free zone” policy.
Cormier sued Planet Fitness in Midland County “alleging invasion of privacy; sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the [CRA]; breach of contract; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act [MCPA].”
In 2016, the trial court ruled in Planet Fitness’ favor to dismiss the lawsuit, and Cormier appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals that also upheld the lower court’s ruling. Cormier then appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which ruled in her favor in April and remanded the case back to the appeals court.
The appeals court’s July 26 opinion stated that Cormier’s “actions indicate that she strongly preferred a locker room and a restroom in which individuals who are assigned biologically male are not present, and it is thus reasonable to infer that defendants’ [Planet Fitness] failure to inform plaintiff [Cormier] of the unwritten policy affected her decision to join the gym.”
Additionally, the court held that Cormier’s visits to Planet Fitness after she learned of their policy “does not preclude as a matter of law an inference that defendants’ [Planet Fitness] failure to inform her of the unwritten policy affected her decision to join the gym. That is because plaintiff [Cormier] was already a member of the gym when she learned of the unwritten policy and was thus subject to a financial penalty if she canceled her membership earlier than provided in the membership agreement.”
The case now goes back to the Midland County court.