Fitness centre target in battle of flexes
B. C. man fights ‘ women-only’ gym Rule is justified, business argues
VANCOUVER— In his 30s and leading a self-confessed lazy lifestyle, Gordon Stopps decided it was time to shape up, so he researched fitness centres in his neighbourhood. He eventually set his sights on one that perfectly met his needs — a 15- minute walk from home, lots of cardio equipment and yoga and Tai Chi classes to exercise the mind. The problem for Stopps was the place he chose, Just Ladies Fitness, lives up to its name. So, the leaky- condo repairman from the suburb of Burnaby has gone to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, claiming he was denied service because of his sex when he tried to take advantage of a 10- day free membership offer he got in the mail.
“This is a double standard,” Stopps, 33, told a hearing, suggesting women’s- only gyms are proliferating while facilities for just men are closing. “ If this was a decency issue then there are less extreme remedies than the wholesale banning of an entire gender.”
Stopps, who is representing himself, said he was greeted “ rudely” and with “ overt hostility” by staff when he went into the club last October. Though he was never told men were not allowed and that restriction is not written in the conditions of membership, he said a manager continually said “ it’s a women’sonly gym” as he pushed the issue. Stopps said staff and club members in the reception area gave him “ withering looks and scrunched up their eyes and noses” when he asked the manager how she would feel if she was denied service because she’s a woman, just as he was being refused it as a man.
Since that day, Stopps, a man of medium build, about fivefoot11 and wearing hoop earrings, said he’s become “depressed and despondent.” He said he went days without shaving or bathing, stopped going outside on weekends and contemplated suicide because of the case. But Just Ladies lawyer Geoff Litherland accused Stopps of launching his complaint for “ improper motives and in bad faith.” He told tribunal member Judith Parrack, who is expected to reserve her judgment as early as today, that Stopps had no interest in joining the club but simply wanted to get attention and protest the women’s- only concept.
Litherland asked that the case be dismissed in its entirety. He also argued that even if Parrack were to conclude there was discrimination — a finding he rejects — she should determine it’s justifiable and in the public interest for decency and safety.
“ We argue that the privacy, dignity and safety of members outweighs the equality rights of this complainant,” Litherland said, noting most women join because there are no men and programs such as pre- and post- natal fitness and child-minding are geared to females.
Stopps could have easily found asimilar gym nearby and for less money, he said. “ Discrimination does not arise because of different treatment,” Litherland said. “Burden, obligation or disadvantage has not been imposed by the women- only rule.”
Stopps told reporters it would have been “ a little too easy” to give up the fight. “ I’d just sort of be a little punk who gave up at the first difficult situation that came up,” he said outside the hearing room. “And, I think that’s basically why these problems exist — because nobody stands hard and solves them.”