TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – Thirteenth Circuit Court Judge Kevin Elsenheimer recently dismissed a lawsuit filed by Studio 8 Hair Lab against the City of Traverse City and three individuals.
The lawsuit, initiated by the salon in response to complaints lodged against it, was ruled as “frivolous” and intended to harass and intimidate the complainants.
What happened?
MORE NEWS: Michigan Dems Learn Nothing from Nov. 5, Back Bills for ‘Birthing People’
The controversy surrounding Studio 8 began when its owner, Christine Geiger, posted alleged discriminatory remarks on social media, stating that transgender individuals were not welcome at her salon. In 2023, she had posted on social media that anyone who “identifies as anything other than a man/woman please seek services at a local pet groomer. You are not welcome at this salon.”
Following these comments, twenty-one individuals filed complaints with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR), resulting in a formal charge against Studio 8.
Studio 8 filed lawsuit against the city and three individuals.
In retaliation, Studio 8 filed a lawsuit against the city and the individuals who filed the complaints, alleging violations of its religious beliefs and free speech rights. However, the court ruled that the individuals were not state actors and therefore not subject to constitutional protections.
Judge Elsenheimer said in his ruling, “there is no question that a private citizen independently reporting a claim of discrimination is a private, not a state actor.”
Freedom of speech argument rejected.
Additionally, Studio 8 cited a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding freedom of speech and expression, but the court found that the case was materially different from Studio 8’s situation. Unlike the case referenced by Studio 8, which involved expressive speech, then court said that Studio 8’s provision of hair services did not constitute protected speech under the First Amendment.
Elsenheimer said about the other case that plaintiffs “were providing a unique, customized good or service that involved expressive speech…in this case, plaintiff is providing hair services and products which do not contain images, words, symbols, or other modes of expression.”
The court also rejected Studio 8’s challenge to the constitutionality of Traverse City’s Non- Discrimination Ordinance and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, stating that Studio 8 failed to prove the ordinance or the act were unconstitutional.
Court dismissed all claims from Studio 8.
Additionally, the court dismissed Studio 8’s claims against the city, noting that there was no relevant controversy between Studio 8 and the city. The judge emphasized that the city had not taken any action against Studio 8 but had merely forwarded complaints to the MDCR for investigation.
Following the court’s decision, Studio 8 expressed disagreement with the ruling to the Traverse City Ticker, indicating that the primary issue of challenging the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act had not been resolved.
Michigan Attorney General moving ahead with charges of civil rights violation.
The Michigan Attorney General’s office welcomed the court’s decision, emphasizing that discrimination based on gender identity and expression is prohibited under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. They also said in a press release, “In dismissing the case, the Grand Traverse County Circuit Court determined that Studio 8 had filed its claims against the MDCR in the wrong forum.”
Michigan Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel, on behalf of the Michigan Dept. of Civil Rights (MDCR), has filed a motion to dismiss Geiger’s claims against them, arguing that the Circuit Court is the wrong forum for this challenge and that only the Michigan Court of Claims can hear cases against the State of Michigan and its departments.
Progressing through the legal system, the MDCR discrimination case against Studio 8 is also advancing, with a hearing set before an administrative law judge in early April. At this stage, the judge will assess whether discrimination occurred and propose appropriate penalties. Following this, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission will review the judge’s recommendation and issue their final determination and directives.
Leave a Comment
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.