A female-only spa in Washington state that a judge said has to accept men if they identify as women says it will fight against the ruling.
The Olympus Spa plans to enter a new complaint in the case, which centers around a state law that bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, a lawyer representing the business said.
“We will be amending our complaint, as the Court granted leave to do, and continuing to push back against the Human Rights Commission of Washington State, which continues to apply the WLAD in a manner that is neither neutral nor generally applicable,” Tracy Tribbett Samson, the lawyer, told The Epoch Times via email.
Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) was cited in a complaint filed by a man who identifies as a woman against Olympus Spa, which has locations in Tacoma and Lynnwood.
The spa was not abiding by the law because it refused to provide services to “transgender woman” with male genitalia, the man claimed.
The Washington Human Rights Commission agreed, directing the spa to remove language that stated it would only serve “biological women.” Spa owners, workers, and patrons sued in response, arguing the determination infringed on their constitutional rights relating to their religious beliefs.
Visiting U.S. District Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, a Carter appointee, recently ruled against the plaintiffs.
The state law “does not by its terms favor a particular religion or the non-exercise of religion,” Rothstein ruled, adding later that the plaintiffs also failed to prove infringement on free association and free speech claims.
The commission’s direction on the “biological women” language was only “incidental” to the regulation of discriminatory conduct being carried out under WLAD, according to the judge.
On free association, the only association the business showed was their female-only policy, the judge said.
“The court does not minimize the privacy concerns at play when employees are performing exfoliating massages on nude patrons. Aside from this nudity, though, there is simply nothing private about the relationship between Olympus Spa, its employees, and the random strangers who walk in the door seeking a massage,” she wrote. “Nor is there anything selective about the association at issue beyond Olympus Spa’s ‘biological women’ policy. The Court therefore has little difficulty concluding that the personal attachments implicated here are too attenuated to qualify for constitutional protection.”
The commission had asked for a dismissal of the lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
Rothstein said the arguments were wrong.
Standing requires plaintiffs to show an injury that is traceable to a defendant, in this case the commission, and that is likely to be redressed with requested relief.
A pre-litigation agreement reached between the spa and the commission requires continued compliance with the terms of the agreement, including not re-implementing the biological women policy. The commission threatened legal action if the terms weren’t followed. That constitutes an injury, Rothstein said.
The injury is traceable because of the threat, the judge said. And she said the problem would likely be addressed by a favorable decision.
“The relief Plaintiffs request would redress the injury at issue because it would declare application of the WLAD to Olympus Spa’s ‘biological women’ policy unconstitutional. And an order enjoining future enforcement would obviously preclude the Commission from penalizing that policy,” Rothstein wrote. “The third standing element is met.”
While Rothstein ruled in favor of the plaintiffs for standing, she rejected all of their claims.
She did, though, grant a request to let the plaintiffs amend their complaint, over opposition from the commission.
“The Commission does not argue (and thus has not shown) that Plaintiffs intend to amend their complaint in bad faith or that permitting an amended complaint will result in undue delay,” Rothstein said. She also found that there were no indications that amending the complaint would be futile.
Lawyers for the defendants have not responded to requests for comment. The commission has not commented on the latest ruling.
Plaintiffs have 30 days from the order, entered on June 5, to update the filing, with no limitations on the updates.
Tribbett, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, said the plaintiffs would work to make their case.
“The State can claim no interest in the health, peace, safety, and general welfare which is served by forcing women to be naked in front of men or pre-operative transgender women,” Tribbett said. “The law has long recognized restrictions on nudity as between the sexes as reasonable, and the interests at stake between two protected parties are poorly served without proper time, place, and manner limits. Olympus Spa is quasi-public in that it has never been open to all people at all times. Women have been the exclusive clientele of Olympus Spa, always.”
The case is Olympus Spa et al. v. Andreta Armstrong, case number 2:22-cv-00340-BJR in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.