Trans Woman Wins Settlement from Gym that Refused Her Use of Women’s Locker Room
Crunch Gym in El Cajon Will Pay Settlement, Train Staff
SAN DIEGO – Christynne Wood was devoted to her workouts at the gym now known as Crunch Fitness in El Cajon, California. She lost more than 100 pounds, as urgently advised by medical personnel, and made several friends among staffers and patrons.
But nine years into her membership, when she informed the gym’s management that she was in the process of transitioning to female, Wood’s relationship with Crunch radically changed. Management refused to allow her use of the women’s locker room and restroom, even though that was clearly her right under California law.
Today, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, the ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties, and the law firm Nixon Peabody LLP announce the settlement of a discrimination lawsuit filed on Wood’s behalf in 2018 by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
Wood will receive a payment and the gym has agreed that all its employees will undergo anti-discrimination training, including the identification and prevention of harassment based on gender expression.
“I feel elated and validated to finally reach resolution in this case,” Wood said. “I hope the settlement helps the owners of Crunch and other gyms appreciate the importance of respecting transgender people’s identities. It’s not only our legal right, but also could save a life.”
The discrimination Christynne experienced is not unusual; a study conducted by the Williams Institute at UCLA found that nearly 70 percent of transgender people have experienced discrimination when trying to use public restrooms.
And it’s against the law in California. The Unruh Civil Rights Act bans discrimination based on “a person’s gender identity and gender expression,” and goes on to define gender expression as “a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.”
California law mandates that trans people have access to the restroom and locker room that align with their gender identity.
“No one should have to endure the indignity and harassment that Crunch Fitness inflicted on Christynne,” said Aditi Fruitwala, staff attorney at the ACLU SoCal. “Thanks to Christynne’s moxie and courage to come forward and fight for her rights, a clear message has been sent to businesses.”
Early in life Wood, now in her 60s, realized that her gender identity was female, but she didn’t feel comfortable expressing that publicly until becoming more acquainted with the LGBTQ community and gaining confidence about identifying as a transgender woman. She began transitioning to female with the support of health care providers.
But there were incidences of harassment, including at Crunch Fitness where a man approached Wood in the men’s locker room, smiling and grabbing his genitals. Wood fled the locker room and reported the incident to a gym manager, but as near as she could tell, no action was taken.
Wood requested use of the women’s facilities but was told she needed to obtain a doctor’s verification of her transitioning. On Sept. 30, 2016, she presented a letter that not only confirmed her treatments, but also stated it was “very important” she be able to use the women’s facilities.
Still, she was denied them. In October 2016, Wood was given free access to use a premium locker room, but it was a men’s facility. Even after she obtained a Superior Court order legally changing her name and gender, Crunch Fitness refused to let her use the women’s locker room.
It was only after another men’s locker room harassment incident – a man referred to her as a “fucking faggot” – that Wood was finally allowed access to the women’s facilities. This was on Sept. 15, 2017, almost an entire year after Wood presented the doctor’s letter.
The state Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) filed the initial lawsuit against the gym in 2018.
“DFEH brought suit in this case under the California Unruh Civils Right Act to vindicate the essential right of transgender Californians to live their lives free from discrimination,” said DFEH director Kevin Kish. “Today’s settlement ensures that no Californian will face the discrimination Ms. Wood experienced in the future at this establishment.”
The ACLU SoCal, ACLU-SDIC, and law firm Nixon Peabody later joined the lawsuit.
Since the events described in the lawsuit, the ownership and management of the gym has changed. Wood remains a member and user of the gym.
Read settlement documents here:
https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/wood_settlement_-_damages_signed_redacted.pdf
https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/wood_settlement_-_injunctive_relief_signed.pdf
See a video about Wood here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcurbSsmtf4
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.