Stopps v. Just Ladies Fitness

"Stopps v. Just Ladies Fitness" was a discrimination by sex case heard before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal that was significant in Canadian law because it upheld the right of certain female-only groups to discriminate against males in certain limited circumstances.

The Complainant

Ralph G. Stopps, born in 1974, is a renovation man with a B.A. in psychology. He lives in Vancouver. On October 2, 2004 he applied to Just Ladies Fitness facility in Metrotown and was denied membership because he is male. Mr. Stopps was discriminated against because of his gender, which violates s. 8 of the "Human Rights Code," which prohibits discrimination by sex. Mr. Stopps filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, and on November 21, 2006 the BCHR tribunal, a panel of 9 females and 3 males, rendered its decision siding with the women's only fitness chain.

The Respondent

Just Ladies Fitness is a women's only fitness facility, discriminating against males in its policy from its inception. Although some men work there in management and maintenance. It was argued at the tribunal that many women attend the facility because they feel demeaned by men gazing at them at co-ed facilities, and discriminates against males based on gender, to accommodate certain individuals. Also, the facility claims that it is unique because it is cleaner, has smaller weights that are more suitable for females, and because it has prenatal fitness classes, again catering to certain individuals, which they feel constitutes their gender bias discriminatory policy. The managers argued that women pay higher fees at their facility than at other fitness facilities, and that this proves that some females feel that going to a female only fitness facility is necessary, but in no way constitutes sexual discrimination.

Tribunal Decision

The Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the complainant, Mr. Stopps, had failed to prove on a balance of probabilities all the elements required to demonstrate that illegal discrimination had happened, yet in siding with the fitness chain, the tribunal acts in due prejudice adhering to sexual discrimination, regardless of Mr. Stopps "ability" to "prove". Mr. Stopps still has the right to appeal the BCHRT's decision.

Firstly, the tribunal found that Mr. Stopps never had any serious intention of working out at the facility, as he had never gone to any fitness facilities before, and did not attend any after he was denied membership at "Just Ladies Fitness", but neither does Mr. Stopps need to, to expose their gender discrimination.Fact|date=January 2008 The tribunal found that the only reason for going to "Just Ladies Fitness" was to raise attention to his cause of sexual discrimination. Since he never had any serious intention of working out at the facility, the denial didn't adversely affect him, and so he was not eligible for compensation, even though the fitness chain's sexual discrimination admissions policy, does affect all males in general, and promotes sexual discrimination.Fact|date=January 2008

Second, the tribunal found that that Mr. Stopps failed to prove that his dignity has been demeaned by his denial of membership, even though it was demeaned, and is demeaning to all males, just as sexual discrimination is demeaning to both the male and female sexes.Fact|date=January 2008 In British Columbia, one cannot receive compensation for being discriminated against unless one also proves that the discrimination demeaned their dignity, and Mr. Stopps failed to prove that his dignity had been significantly demeaned. The BCHRT, with due prejudice, has discriminated against Mr. Stopps, and rallied all their partiality in this case around absurd "failure to prove" sentiment, when the blatant sexual discrimination in this case dominates the BCHRT's quirky "failure to prove" sentiments and motive to side with the sexually discriminating fitness chain.Fact|date=January 2008

Third, the tribunal found that its purpose is to provide compensation for those who have actually suffered from being discriminated against, and that the tribunal should not be used to make a political point, even though all discrimination cases and human rights violation cases are politically motivated, and if not, that Mr. Stopps was still discriminated against based on gender. The tribunal found that Mr. Stopps's claim was entirely politically motivated, and filing such claims harms those who file legitimate claims of discrimination, including men who have been discriminated against and whose dignity has been demeaned, even though Mr. Stopps was both sexually discriminated against because of his gender, are far more demeaned than any member/s of said fitness chain in question regarding fitness attire.Fact|date=January 2008

Fourth, the tribunal ruled that its current ruling does not mean that "Just Ladies Fitness" can discriminate against men in any and every situation. Each situation must be looked at in its appropriate context. The tribunal thus did not entirely close the door for males to file a complaint for being discriminated against by a women's only facility, yet the fitness chain has enforced sexual discrimination since its inception.Fact|date=January 2008

Fifth, the BCHRT sided with Women's Only Fitness's argument that it has a muslim member who due to religion, cannot be seen by a male in fitness attire, exercising due prejudice and sexual discrimination against Mr. Stopps and all males, to accommodate and attune a specific individual and/or individuals personal need and or desires.Fact|date=January 2008

Six, the BCHRT is a panel of 12 individuals comprising 9 females and 3 males. It is argued that this harbors a "conflict of interest" in the panels decision to side with the fitness chains sexual discrimination, and a decision based solely on the adamancy that Mr. Stopps "prove" insignificant fortalices in this sexual discrimination case.Fact|date=January 2008weasel

imilar Cases

* [http://pulse-blogs.arguscourier.com/default.asp?item=179106 Judge in Sonoma County forces fitness facility to accept men]

* [http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051229/NEWS/512290369/1036/BUSINESS State agency sues Santa Rosa Health Club]

References

* [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2006/pdf/nov/557_Stopps_v_Just_Ladies_Fitness_(Metrotown)_and_D_(No_3)_2006_BCHRT_557.pdf Decision in PDF format]

ee also

* Men's Rights
* List of notable Canadian Courts of Appeals cases
* List of Supreme Court of Canada cases