By Janis K. Doleschal
On October 11, 2011, Tarainia McDaniel entered the Planet Fitness, Irving location, in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Although she had used the facility at the Coors location on numerous occasions before, she was refused admittance to the use of the Irving facility because of her head covering. The gym denied her requests to use the facility in spite of the fact that she explained she was of the Muslim faith and was required to wear a head covering. When the refusal continued, she stated that she would have to cancel her membership. She was then told she needed to return to the Coors location to do so.
Upon returning to the Coors location, she explained the refusal to allow her use of the gym at the Irving location. The Coors employee explained that under certain conditions the dress code was waived if the article of clothing was not too obvious, but opined that in her case Irving probably would not waive it because the head covering was red. Further, upon checking with her manager, the employee at the Coors location also refused McDaniel admittance to the gym. McDaniel cancelled her membership and on the form listed her reasons for cancellation as, “Dress Code (bandana head wear)” and “Muslim requirement to cover hair was denied.”
On February 12, 2012, she subsequently filed charges of discrimination against Planet Fitness, and when all administrative processes pursuant to New Mexico law were exhausted, she filed a timely Notice of Appeal that is scheduled for trial in August, 2014.
There are several items of importance at issue in this case for operators of physical fitness facilities. First and foremost is the requirement that if the facility is open to the public, it is a place of public accommodation and as such, cannot discriminate against customers for reasons of religious affiliation or race.
Second, if the egregious action is such that it can be addressed initially through administrative action, it would be in the best interests of a facility to address the grievance and settle it as soon as possible without incurring possible further legal action.
Third, if a gym facility wishes to restrict the wearing of specific garb, it cannot act inconsistently and indiscriminately when doing so, the facility must have substantial, non-discriminatory reasons for the policy, those policies should be made known in writing to any individual seeking membership, and require the prospective member’s signature prior to granting membership. McDaniel had used Planet Fitness gyms on prior occasions and had been allowed to participate. McDaniel acknowledged that she had seen the sign posted at the Irving facility stating, “no jeans, work boots, bandanas, skull caps or revealing apparel.” However, upon her applying for membership at the Coors location, she also stated to Planet Fitness employees that she was Muslim and needed to wear a hair covering and was subsequently allowed to participate at that facility. At no time did she hide the fact that she was a Muslim, nor did she hide the fact that because of her religion, she would need to wear a head covering.
Planet Fitness could certainly have instituted the restriction of the wearing of certain clothing if there were safety considerations. For example, if, in McDaniels’ case, the looseness of the scarf could have presented a risk when using certain fitness equipment, Planet Fitness could have required that the covering be tight to the head. But in this case, not one employee implied that the rules were in place for safety reasons, nor were they willing to work with the customer so that she could continue to use their facilities. In fact, employees of Planet Fitness stated only that her wearing of the scarf violated the dress code and offered no further information regarding safety, nor did any employees exhibit willingness to compromise.
Fourth, on March 20, 2014, McCall Gosselin, director of public relations for Planet Fitness issued a statement stating that “At Planet Fitness, our policy is, and always has been, that members are allowed to wear a head covering compliant with the Islamic faith.” Neither the manager at Coors nor the counter employees at Irving or Coors indicated by their actions that they knew what the policy or its interpretation should have been. Why? All indications point to the fact that there was incomplete training for Planet Fitness employees.
When a gym facility hires employees, those employees should be trained regarding company policies and should be given a “Standard Operating Procedures Manual” during the training. Scenarios regarding possible questions or, at the very least, an FAQ section in the manual should cover some of the more frequent situations that could arise. Further, if accommodations of dress are needed, those accommodations can often be made, within reason, if the facility and the customer both understand one another’s needs and can work together to address those needs. While difficulties will still surface, in the case of Planet Fitness, the possible lack of training led to inconsistent interpretation and application of their rules, and an unwillingness to accommodate the customer’s religious need that a head covering be worn at the facility.
With the increased interest on the part of the public in weight loss and physical training, the use of fitness facilities has become more popular. However, in the process, it would be easy for facilities to forget about some basic principles of risk management: train employees, put policies in writing, state the policies pertaining to customers when individuals initially sign up for membership, require prospective members to sign a statement of understanding regarding the participation policies, post the more important policies in writing in the facility, expect employees to use discretion when unusual circumstances arise, and, if the situation is unusual to the employee, offer to check with “corporate” regarding whether accommodations can be made.
The Tarainia McDaniel suit against Planet Fitness is scheduled for trial in August, 2014; however, according to court records, there have been several motions to extend deadlines and the final settlement conference has not yet been held. Litigation can be cumbersome, expensive, and a long, drawn-out process. It is in the best interests of any fitness facility to avoid litigation whenever possible. In this case, proper training of employees and a willingness on the part of Planet Fitness to work with the customer could have possibly avoided unnecessary litigation.
Janis K. Doleschal, LLM, CAA, is currently a Sports Law Consultant and Adjunct Professor teaching graduate classes in Sport Law and Sport Finance at Marquette University in Milwaukee, WI.
