TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – The legal saga involving Traverse City’s Studio 8 Hair Lab, the City of Traverse City and the State of Michigan’s Civil Rights Division is currently in limbo with disputes spanning from local courtrooms to state-level appeals.

From salon to social storm.

The controversy erupted in July of 2023 when Christine Geiger, owner of Studio 8 Hair Lab, posted on social media, “If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman please seek services at a local pet groomer. You are not welcome at this salon.”

MORE NEWS: Michigan Dems Learn Nothing from Nov. 5, Back Bills for ‘Birthing People’

Geiger’s social media post sparked 21 complaints with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR). Studio 8 filed a lawsuit against the city and the complainants on October 25th in the 13th Circuit Court. This case is Studio 8 Hair Lab v City of Traverse City, et al.

Back in March of this year, the Grand Traverse 13th Circuit Court dismissed Studio 8’s lawsuit.

An appeal was filed in May by David M. Delaney, PLC, the attorney for the plaintiff-appellant. The case, which involves allegations of discrimination, claims of constitutional violations, violations of religious beliefs, and first amendment issues, has sparked significant legal and public debate in the city of Traverse City and around the state.

In the crosshairs: salons, statutes, and showdowns.

In the lawsuit, Studio 8 had set their sights on the Elliott-Laren Civil Rights Act and Traverse City’s Non-Discrimination Ordinance, both of which were written to prevent discrimination in public accommodations based on gender identity or expression. The salon argued that their religious and free speech rights were being violated. However, the lawsuit was dismissed in March by 13th Circuit Court Judge Kevin Elsenheimer.

Michigan News Source contacted Delaney recently about the status of the case and he said, “The Grand Traverse County Circuit Court issued 2 written opinions. Studio 8 appealed the decisions to the Michigan Court of Appeals and filed a Bypass Application in the Michigan Supreme Court.
The appeals remain pending.”

Studio 8 opts out of hearing amid legal battle over discrimination charges.

On November 15, 2023, a formal charge of discrimination was issued against the salon by the Michigan Department of Civil Rights. This case is Michigan Department of Civil Rights v Studio 8 Hair Lab, LLC.

MORE NEWS: Flush With Money: Detroit Schools’ Superintendent Nikolai Vitti Led District Back to Financial Stability

A hearing over the discrimination charge was scheduled on August 22nd, before an administrative law judge, but Delaney told Michigan News Source that Studio 8 chose not to participate saying, “The court rules do not require that the respondent participate.”

Constitutional clash: Studio 8 challenges administrative proceedings.

Delaney said in a statement that on June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that respondents in administrative proceedings are entitled to a jury trial under the Constitution. Studio 8, bolstered by this ruling, filed a motion to dismiss the administrative proceeding on the grounds that it would proceed without a jury.

Delaney said, “Astoundingly and in defiance of the US Supreme Court the administrative law judge ruled that Studio 8 is not entitled to a jury trial. Studio 8 elected not to participate in a proceeding in violation of the Constitution. Apparently the proceeding went forward on August 22, 2024. We have not received a decision.”

The central issue.

In a memo to Michigan News Source, Delaney said that the central issue is that the government may not regulate speech about a future event. He said, “The 1976 Michigan civil rights law prohibits actual denial of goods and services. However, Michigan law goes further and punishes any statement that goods and services will be denied in the future. A civil rights law prohibits the act of discriminating. The law cannot target speech protected by the First Amendment.”

He went on to say, “Since 1976, a period of 47 years, the MDCR has never prosecuted anyone for a statement that goods and services will be denied in the future. Until now. Further, the Facebook statement was made in 2023. Gender identity or expression was not the law until 2024. The complainants are not customers of Studio 8; have never been customers and were never denied service. The complainants viewed an online Facebook statement. The Facebook statement did not address the complainants by name; did not address their family, friends, any one known to them or their employer. In fact the Facebook statement did not address any person or individual.”

Awaiting outcomes in court.

Once issued, the administrative law judge’s decision will be sent to the Civil Rights Commission where they will review the judge’s recommendation and then issue a final determination and order. Studio 8 will then have the option to appeal to the Grand Traverse County Circuit Court – a court already entangled in appeals from this very case, setting the stage for a complex legal showdown.

Studio 8’s journey through the courts continues to raise questions about constitutional rights and administrative law, with critical decisions still on the horizon.