Legislature(1999 - 2000)
01/13/2000 01:40 PM Senate L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE LABOR AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE
January 13, 2000
1:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Jerry Mackie, Chairman
Senator Lyman Hoffman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Tim Kelly
Senator Loren Leman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 176
"An Act permitting a physical fitness facility or gymnasium to
limit public accommodation to only males or only females."
-HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 176 - No previous action to consider.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Drue Pearce
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 176.
Mr. John Sankey
1905 Parkside Dr.
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 176.
Ms. Sarah Masalton
8360 Nasine #4
Anchorage AK 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 176.
Ms. Jeanne McAllister
3325 E. 15th Ave.
Anchorage AK 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 176.
Ms. Chris Parsons
725 N. Bliss
Anchorage, Ak 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 176.
Ms. Paula Haley
Human Rights Commission
800 A Street
Anchorage AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 176.
Mr. Dan Coffee, Attorney
Women's Health Club
Anchorage, AK
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-1, SIDE A
Number 001
SB 176-SEX DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CLUBS
CHAIRMAN MACKIE called the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee
meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. and announced SB 176 to be up for
consideration.
SENATOR PEARCE explained that SB 176 was introduced at the request
of the Women's Club, a health and fitness exercise facility with
two locations in Anchorage. Last year, the Alaska Human Rights
Commission found an action against the Club saying it unlawfully
discriminated against men because it does not allow male members.
The Commission based its decision on AS 18.82.30 which says that in
places of accommodation it is unlawful to refuse, withhold from, or
deny to a person any of its services if the facility bases its
membership on sex.
SENATOR PEARCE stated that health clubs are not specifically
referenced in AS 18.80.314. The bill before the committee would
establish in law that health clubs are not designed for public
accommodation and have no public policy interest. Gender based
health clubs offer a secluded environment that allow people to feel
more at ease in, what is often, an intimidating setting. She hoped
to recognize the unique setting of either a male-only or a female-
only health club based on membership and employment. The bill in
no way excludes any individual from the opportunity to exercise in
a co-ed health club, if the individual so chooses.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if a definition of "health club" exists in
the statute that she referenced.
SENATOR PEARCE answered she would have to check "physical fitness
facility or gymnasium" in the statute.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE commented that the facility could not be designed
for public accommodation, such as a public school gymnasium.
SENATOR PEARCE replied that is correct, taken in the context of the
full statute.
Number 334
MR. JOHN SANKEY, the owner of the Women's Health Club, a division
of the Wellness Institute, explained that the Club was built about
eight years ago to accommodate women who were attending his weight-
loss clinic. He has specialized in the field of weight loss for
the last 10 years and about 95 percent of his clients are female.
MR. SANKEY noted that two components for successful weight loss and
maintenance are diet and exercise. While his clients would do well
on the diet, none of the women would go to any of the fitness clubs
in Anchorage because they are co-ed and they felt very intimidated
by the presence of men. He built the fitness club for these
particular women. He bought equipment that is specifically
designed for the female anatomy. Most fitness clubs have equipment
built for men and do not accommodate a woman properly. Were his
Club co-ed, it would lose its main reason for being.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked what other states have statutes for gender
specific clubs. He noted that Massachusetts changed its law.
MR.SANKEY answered this issue went to the highest court in
Pennsylvania and the ruling was 3-2 in favor of women-only clubs.
It really has not been an issue in other states. Every state in
the union has women-only fitness clubs.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE said he sees that Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois,
Massachusetts, New Jersey and Tennessee, as well as Pennsylvania,
allow them.
MR. SANKEY said all other states have simply let it be without any
litigation or complaints.
Number 700
MS. SARAH MASALTON stated support for SB 176. She said that
society allows for separate-sex restrooms, changing rooms, and
showers in public facilities. Women should be free to work on their
bodies' needs without being watched by the intruding eyes of
another person. The Nautilus Club is the only club where a woman
can work on her personal needs without compromising her modesty,
dignity, and self-respect by compromising her privacy.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if, in her opinion, a lot of women would go
without rather than use co-ed clubs.
MS. MASALTON replied yes.
MS. JEANNE MCCALLISTER, Anchorage, said she is a weight-loss
counselor at the Medifast weight-loss clinic and has been involved
in the fitness industry for over 10 years. She said she has had a
lot of contact with the women in the clubs and for them it is an
issue of privacy. They would lose a lot of members and a lot of
women would not take the opportunity to work out if there are no
women's clubs.
MS. CHRIS PARSONS, customer service representative, Nautilus Club,
said she deals with the women in the gym all day long. She knows
how they work out and their concerns. Ninety percent of their
customers will not work out somewhere else if they don't have this
facility.
Number 987
MS. PAULA HALEY, Alaska Human Rights Commission, said the
Commission opposes SB 176. This action was brought to the
Commission by an individual who claimed he had been denied
membership due to his gender. The Commission investigated the
claim and determined that under statute a female-only club is a
place of public accommodation. The statutory definition of public
accommodation also includes the phrase, "all other public amusement
and business establishments." Accordingly, the Commission deemed
this kind of operation prohibited under statute. The agency staff
cannot decide constitutional issues so the issue of privacy is not
one they evaluated. The Commission issued a discrimination finding
and set a hearing date in April. The Commissioners agreed to
revisit the issue if legislation was introduced but after reviewing
SB 176, the Commission continues to oppose the bill because it will
create a "slippery slope" leading to the segregation of other
facilities. In addition, for many years women opposed male-only
clubs and facilities. The Commission was also concerned that the
phrase "physical fitness facility and gymnasium" is vague and that
the recreation gymnasium at the Spenard Center would be included in
this bill even if that was not the intent of the sponsor.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if the Commission was sympathetic to some of
the testimony the Committee has heard and whether it has suggestion
on how to address the privacy concern.
Number 1354
MS. HALEY replied that some members were concerned that women had
said for so long they should not be excluded from clubs that have
traditionally been male-only. Commission members questioned how
women can say they want equality for all, except when they need a
niche in this area. The Commission was not unsympathetic. The
members respect that reasonable minds can differ on this issue.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked what the Commission suggested.
MS. HALEY said the Commission thought a definition of "physical
fitness facility and gymnasium" would help, but it would still
oppose the legislation in general. She noted in the 20 years she
has been involved in civil rights enforcement this situation has
brought the strongest opinions on both sides of the fence.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE commented that the only reason a man would be upset
is because men tend to work out a lot harder when there are women
around.
SENATOR PEARCE stated that the Human Rights statute lists the
definition of public accommodation as "public amusement and
business establishments." However, in notes to decisions, "public
accommodations" does not apply to membership organizations.
SENATOR PEARCE asked Ms. Haley why the Commission choose a
different view in light of the statute and the Supreme Court case
involving the Jaycees.
MS. HALEY responded that the Commission is of the opinion that this
entity falls within the definition of public accommodation. The
Jaycee case was about a service membership organization that had no
location, such as the Girl Scouts. Many business establishments
are considered clubs; they are open to the general public and the
only criteria is that one must join to participate. She does not
feel that the Jaycees' case says the Commission erred in going
forward given the language of the statute.
SENATOR PEARCE stated that she is willing to work on the definition
of "public health clubs."
Number 1738
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked Ms. Haley to give some examples of how this
case could lead to a "slippery slope."
MS. HALEY responded that if a private social club where business
deals are made were to exclude women, men, or African-Americans,
for example, passage of SB 176 would create a "slippery slope."
SENATOR PEARCE disagreed.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked that the word "gymnasium" also be defined.
MR. DAN COFFEE, Attorney, stated that all of the concerns brought
up have been discussed in every state that has considered these
matters. The "slippery slope" issue is discussed in his handout.
It is clear that women have a right to privacy and that this
legislation in other states has not caused a proliferation of men
only clubs. He would also like clarity on the definitions.
Number 2033
CHAIRMAN MACKIE stated that he supports the legislation and would
like to move it from committee as soon as a committee substitute is
completed and the committee is comfortable with the new language.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
CHAIRMAN MACKIE adjourned the meeting at 2:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|