When the Greater Good Doesn’t Prevail

Every so often, a law put into effect for good reason ends up undermining the greater good. This was certainly the case when a court ruled that a Santa Rosa, Calif.,-based women’s-only fitness center, Body Central, violated state law by excluding men. And, when owner Shannon Hartnett failed to comply with her settlement agreement, reached in 2004 with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), to eliminate all advertising that portrayed Body Central as a women’s-only fitness center, as well as provide separate shower and locker facilities for men within two years, the DFEH filed yet another lawsuit in 2006.

To provide some background.… In 1995, the California Supreme Court ruled that private clubs operating as businesses are required to follow state laws against discrimination. California’s law (the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 51(b)) stipulates that businesses have to provide “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services,” and cannot discriminate on the basis of “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability or medical condition.”

The original lawsuit against Body Central occurred when a man, Phillip Kottle, filed a complaint in 2003 with the DFEH, saying that he was refused membership at the facility on the basis of his sex. California is not the only state in which this has happened. Other states, namely Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Tennessee and Wisconsin, have had similar lawsuits, and now have laws allowing same-sex fitness facilities.

In most instances, there is no question that California’s law is a good one, protecting the rights of its citizens. But in the case of Body Central, the law stands to undermine the efforts made to encourage healthy lifestyles. There are many women who would prefer to only work out with women, and many men who would prefer to only work out with men — simply because they feel more comfortable, perhaps due to a weight issue, or perhaps because they would rather leave the sexual social atmosphere out of their workouts. I’m not saying that all men are eyeing women in the gym or vice-versa. But, let’s be truthful, it does happen.

I realize that the DFEH is required to act on all complaints that it deems violate state law, but it’s hard to understand how Body Central could be so unfairly singled out. There are hundreds of women-only fitness facilities in California, not to mention the recent growth of men-only fitness facilities, that have not had suits filed against them. Yet, they are also in direct violation of California’s or, perhaps, another state’s law.

If our industry is going to help the population get fit and, in the process, reduce the burden on healthcare costs caused by obesity and sedentary lifestyles, operators of single-sex facilities might be well-advised to be proactive about this issue, rather than waiting for the DFEH to come knocking on their doors. There is certainly a greater good to be gained by allowing these facilities to exist than to ban them.