A Michigan appeals court ruled Thursday to send a case involving Planet Fitness and LGBTQ rights back to a Midland trial court.
A woman sued the gym after it revoked her membership because she complained about seeing a transgender woman in the women’s locker room.
Yvette Cormier, who was 48 at the time of the incident, sued Planet Fitness in March 2015 for invasion of privacy, sexual harassment, retaliation, breach of contract and emotional distress.
The appeals court found on Thursday that the gym was at fault for violating the Consumer Protection Act.
Cormier signed a contract with the Midland Planet Fitness when she joined the gym. The contract said she would have access to a private women’s locker room and restroom, according to the court’s opinion. If she had known transgender women would be allowed to use the restroom, she said in her lawsuit, she would not have joined the gym.
Therefore, the court reasoned, because the gym failed to tell her about the policy, they misled her when signing the contract.
Read more:
Schuette: Michigan law doesn’t protect LGBTQ people from discrimination
Civil rights commission rejects AG opinion on LGBT discrimination
Cormier continued to go to the gym after the incident and warned other women at the gym about the policy. The court said it was reasonable for her to continue using the gym because to cancel her membership early would have resulted in extra charges.
“We’re pleased with the decision,” Cormier’s lawyer David Kallman said. “The appeals court opinion was pretty clear that we not only have a valid claim, but that we will also prevail upon it.”
Planet Fitness spokeswoman McCall Gosselin said in an e-mail to the Free Press in 2015 that the membership wasn’t canceled due to the complaints, but rather for violating the gym’s “judgment-free zone” policy, which applies to everyone at the gym.
“Our gender identity non-discrimination policy states that members and guests may use all gym facilities based on their sincere self-reported gender identity,” she said in the email.
Planet Fitness could not be reached for comment on Friday.
The case will be sent back to a Midland trial court. Kallman will then file a motion for summary disposition, saying they should win the case without a trial because of the opinion issued by the appeals court.
If they’re successful with the disposition, Kallman said they’ll be asking for attorney fees to be paid and for Planet Fitness to advertise its policy in the gym’s contracts and on notices around the gym.
A law professor told the Free Press in 2015 that the membership contract gives both parties — the organization and the individual — obligations and expectations. He also said the contract language might be vague.
“The problem I’m seeing here, though, is every contract incorporates a duty of good-faith performance,” said Michigan State University law professor Daniel Barnhizer. “The no-judgment clause in their contract is so potentially vague that they seem to be using it in this situation in a way to deny the member the benefits she reasonably expected out of the contract. This is a significant issue.”
According to the Planet Fitness website, the 23-year-old New Hampshire-based chain has more than 900 locations across the U.S. It calls its judgment-free zone “a unique, friendly and hassle-free environment.”
