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.