Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/06/2000 03:28 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 176 - SEX DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CLUBS CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the first order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 176(RLS), "An Act permitting a physical fitness facility to limit public accommodation to only males or only females." Number 0096 SENATOR DRUE PEARCE, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to testify as the sponsor of CSSB 176(RLS). She stated: Senate Bill 176 allows gender-based health clubs to provide services to members wishing to exercise in the presence of only persons of their own gender. Under the Alaska Constitution, Article 1, Section 22, the right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed. The Alaska Human Rights Commission [AHRC] filed an action against the Anchorage Women's Club last year stating the club unlawfully discriminates against men because the club is a place of public accommodation. The AHRC based their decision on AS 18.80.230, which states that in places of "accommodation" it is unlawful to refuse, withhold from, or deny to a person any of its services, goods, or facilities based on sex. However, health clubs are not referenced in AS 18.80.300 (14), which is the list of places that are places of public accommodation. Senate Bill 176 establishes that health clubs are not designed for public accommodation and have no public policy interests. Gender-based health clubs offer a secluded environment allowing people to feel more at ease in what is often an intimidating setting. Through this measure, Alaska will recognize the unique setting of a male-only or female-only health club based on membership and employment. This bill in no way excludes any individual from the opportunity to exercise or work at a co-ed health club if he or she so desires. Number 0257 I introduced the legislation on behalf of the [Anchorage] Women's Club, which is the club that is being held with a big question mark over their facility. It's a facility in Anchorage, a physical fitness facility, that is open to women as members, and it has female employees. In 1998, an Anchorage man was denied membership in this club based on his gender, since the ... club caters exclusively to women. He filed a complaint to the [Alaska] Human Rights Commission. He later dropped his claim to the commission, but they went ahead, opened a case, and voted that the women's club violated [AS] 18.80.230 which (indisc.) the list of places of public accommodation that I mentioned. This bill merely clarifies that physical fitness facilities would not fit in that list. There are other states who have gone the same direction that we are proposing here. There's no state or federal court or legislative body in the United States that has prohibited the operation of same-gender physical fitness facilities. Illinois, New Jersey and Tennessee explicitly authorize same-gender centers. Pennsylvania, Colorado, New York and Hawaii authorize the existence of same-gender fitness and wellness centers. One of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, that we believe that there's a privacy interest, but also, if you will, a public interest in having facilities able to be open to women only or to men only, I don't have to tell anyone here that Americans, as a group, are getting less healthy. We're getting less exercise and doctors who try to get people to join health clubs find that it is an intimidating setting. It is particularly difficult to get women to join health clubs, and so I think that these clubs in Anchorage serve a very important purpose for the health of the individuals who are members. I believe that we dealt with all of the questions to make sure that we didn't catch gymnasiums somehow without meaning to. Over on the Senate side, gymnasiums are not mentioned. We've gone through the language in a number of permutations, and I think we've handled all of those questions of vagueness. Number 0446 REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked Senator Pearce whether the language in CSHB 176(RLS) is specific enough in relation to expressing a public need in order to withstand a court challenge. SENATOR PEARCE replied that there is a list of public accommodations in state statute. The law clearly says a person cannot discriminate in those places of public accommodations. The bill clarifies that physical fitness facilities are not a part of that list and therefore should withstand a court challenge. Number 0538 DAN COFFEY, Attorney at Law, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated that he represented the Anchorage Women's Club in the AHRC action. He commented: We prepared and submitted to the committee and to the full House [of Representatives], for that matter, what's been documented as a memo to legislators dated December 19, 1999, which contains a variety of information on what has happened in other jurisdictions where this same issue has been considered. During the course of this process, we have heard nothing that hasn't been considered in other jurisdictions. The lines, if you would, are drawn clearly here as between the reasons why this should be permitted and those who argue against it, the reasons they believe it should not be permitted. There's clearly a question of balancing here. Mr. Chairman, we believe that there would be some legitimate concerns, things like the proliferation of men-only clubs and loss of some of the gains that ... people have made over the last 10 or 20 years in eliminating gender discrimination; and there's nothing about this bill that would permit that to occur in the manner that their fears are stated to you, and to us as we listen to them. So, we believe that when you come to balance the right to privacy and the needs that Senator Pearce identified, [those] clearly outweigh the potential and, we believe, unlikely risks that the opponents of this legislation voice to you. Number 0689 REPRESENTATIVE ANDREW HALCRO referred to a letter included in the bill packet [from Robert Tanenbaum, Licensed Psychologist] which states that some women, based upon their religious beliefs, are forbidden from exercising in the presence of men. He asked Mr. Coffey whether the Anchorage Women's Club has experienced this as one of the reasons for having a women-only club. MR. COFFEY said he is not familiar with that. He deferred the question to the owner and operator of the Anchorage Women's Club. Number 0758 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what the rationale was for making a turn in the direction of the definition of "public accommodation." MR. COFFEY answered that the idea is that it falls under the right of privacy in the state constitution. He said: The question is: Do we permit women, particularly, and men, if they so choose, particularly, to exercise in the presence of only their own gender for all of the reasons that are listed and put forth in that memo, including the studies done by Robert Tanenbaum and so forth? And, on the other hand, we have a statute that says, unclearly at best, that you shall not discriminate in gender and sex in places of public accommodation. The statute then goes on to list places of public accommodation. It doesn't list health facilities, but it says "and others", or something along those lines. So, it's sort of a catch-all at the end. The question I think that is legitimately posed by Senator Pearce and her testimony is: Do we want to specifically exclude these places from public accommodations and clarify the statute? And in reaching that decision, then you have to ask yourselves, I think, the legitimate public policy questions: What is the benefit? And what is the downside of doing this? Some of the downsides have been argued; well, then, you'll find a proliferation of men's clubs, and we'll step back to the time when women were excluded from ... the business decisions and the social atmosphere that occurred at ... private men-only clubs. Well, those concerns, like I say, have been addressed in every other jurisdiction that's considered it and the facts, again, are in this memo, but they show there has not been a proliferation of men-only clubs. In fact, the fears that the people have talked about haven't occurred ... when you balance the two issues, the right to privacy versus the potential fears, I think what you find is that the privacy rights and the things that are intended on that far outweigh what I believe to be unfounded fears about some bad consequences, ... and that's what we've heard from the opponents of this: "Oh, there'll be bad consequences." In fact, the history shows, no, there haven't been bad consequences. Number 0949 JOHN SANKEY, Owner, Anchorage Women's Club, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated that he has a Bachelor's of Science Degree in Nursing and a Master's Degree in Psychiatric Nursing. He commented: My background was in those areas that you refer to as recovery areas. I have developed smoking cessation programs and presented them to the city [of Anchorage] and to people up on the Slope and have worked with people in the areas of recovery from alcohol and drug abuse. I became involved in the weight-loss field about 11 years ago. Probably 95 percent of the clients coming to the weight loss clinic were women and it tells me that these women were in a recovery process. There was more to what was going on there than simply reducing their caloric intake. Over a period of time, I would meet with them on a one-to-one basis or in a group setting and I would (indisc.) encourage exercise as one of the steps in this recovery process to lose weight and, more importantly, to keep weight off. Almost all the women refused to go to any of the clubs in town at that time, because they were co-ed and they were just too, some would say, ashamed of their bodies and too just self-conscious of their appearance. As time went on, the building that I'm in, space became available, and I built a women's-only fitness club. Prior to building it, though, I did do some research, went back and found out that all the other states here in the country have women's-only clubs, that some were tested in court, and they had passed. And with that in mind, I thought: Well, this is fine. I built a fitness club for women only, and it's been in place about seven years right now. The women go in there, like it, they feel comfortable, and it does help them a great deal to lose their weight and, more importantly, keeping the weight off. That's where I am right now, and I think it certainly does no harm to anyone and does a lot of good for the female population here in the state. Number 1119 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Sankey how many members there are, how many employees he has, and how much space he rents. MR. SANKEY responded that there are approximately 1,500 women who are members. He has 45 full-time and part-time employees. The space he rents is about 30,000 square feet. Number 1235 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move CSSB 176(RLS) out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSSB 176(RLS) moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|