Stopps v. Just Ladies Fitness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stopps v. Just Ladies Fitness was a discrimination by sex case heard before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal which was significant in Canadian law because it upheld the right of certain female-only groups to discriminate against males in certain limited circumstances.

1 The Complainant
2 The Respondent
3 Court's Decision
4 References
5 See also

[edit] The Complainant

Ralph G. Stopps, born in 1974, is a renovation man with a B.A. in psychology. He lives in Vancouver. On October 2, 2004 he applied to Just Ladies Fitness facility in Metrotown and was denied membership because he is male. Mr. Stopps believes that his denial violates s. 8 of the "Human Rights Code," which prohibits discrimination by sex. Mr. Stopps filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, and on November 21, 2006 the tribunal rendered its decision.

[edit] The Respondent

Just Ladies Fitness is a women's only fitness facility, although some men work there in management and maintenance. It was argued in court that many women attend the facility because they feel demeaned by men gazing at them at co-ed facilities. Also, the facility claims that it is unique because it is cleaner, has smaller weights that are more suitable for females, and because it has prenatal fitness classes. The managers argued that women pay higher fees at their facility than at other fitness facilities, and that this proves that some females feel that going to a female only fitness facility is necessary.

[edit] Court's Decision

The Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the complainant, Mr. Stopps, had failed to prove on a balance of probabilities all the elements required to demonstrate that illegal discrimination had happened.

Firstly, the court found that Mr. Stopps never had any serious intention of working out at the facility, as he had never gone to any fitness facilities before, and did not attend any after he was denied membership at "Just Ladies Fitness". The court found that he only reason for going to "Just Ladies Fitness" was to raise attention to his cause of promoting male rights. Since he never had any serious intention of working out at the facility, he denial didn't adversely affect him, and so he was not eligible for compensation.

Second, the court found that that Mr. Stopps failed to prove that his dignity has been demeaned by his denial of membership. In British Columbia, one cannot receive compensation for being discriminated against unless one also proves that the discrimination demeaned their dignity, and Mr. Stopps failed to prove that his dignity had been significantly demeaned.

Third, the court found that its purpose is to provide compensation for those who have actually suffered from being discriminated against, and that the court should not be used to make a political point. The court found that Mr. Stopps claim was entirely politically motivated, and filing such claims harms those who file legitimate claims of discrimination, including men who have been discriminated against and whose dignity has been demeaned.

Fourth, the court ruled that its current ruling does not mean that "Just Ladies Fitness" can discriminate against men in any and every situation. Every situation must be looked at in its appropriate context. The court thus did not entirely close the door for males to file a complaint for being discriminated against by a women's only facility.