TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – The owner of Studio 8 Hair Lab is appealing a recent decision by the Thirteenth Circuit Court that dismissed her lawsuit against the City of Traverse City, three individuals and the Michigan Department of Civil Rights. The appeal was filed on Wednesday, May 15th by David M. Delaney, PLC, the attorney for the plaintiff-appellant.
The case, involving allegations of discrimination and claims of constitutional violations, has sparked significant legal and public debate in the city of Traverse City and around the state.
Background and initial lawsuit.
MORE NEWS: Michigan Dems Learn Nothing from Nov. 5, Back Bills for ‘Birthing People’
The controversy began when Christine Geiger, the owner of Studio 8 Hair Lab, posted comments on social media in 2023 that many interpreted as discriminatory against transgender individuals. Specifically, Geiger wrote “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.”
Following this post, twenty-one complaints were filed with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR), leading to a formal charge against the salon.
In response, Studio 8 filed a lawsuit against the city and the individuals who lodged the complaints. The salon’s suit alleged violations of its religious beliefs and free speech rights. However, Thirteenth Circuit Court Judge Kevin Elsenheimer dismissed the lawsuit, labeling it “frivolous” and intended to harass the complainants.
Court’s rationale for dismissal.
Judge Elsenheimer ruled that the individuals who reported the discrimination were private citizens, not “state actors,” and therefore not subject to constitutional constraints related to free speech and religious exercise. “There is no question that a private citizen independently reporting a claim of discrimination is a private, not a state actor,” he stated.
Additionally, the court found that the salon’s provision of hair services did not constitute protected speech under the First Amendment. This decision, Delaney says, is in contrast with a recent U.S. Supreme Court case cited by Studio 8, 303 Creative v. Elenis, where the court protected expressive speech.
In the case cited, Judge Gorsuch said that all manner of speech from “pictures, films, paintings, drawings, and engravings” to “oral utterance and the printed word” qualify for first Amendment protections and said that that “no less can hold true when it comes to speech…conveyed over the internet.”
Elsenheimer, however, noted in his opinion that in the Supreme Court case, the plaintiffs were providing a “unique, customized good or service that involved expressive speech,” whereas he said Studio 8’s services did not meet this criterion.
The court also upheld the constitutionality of Traverse City’s Non-Discrimination Ordinance and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, rejecting Studio 8’s arguments that these laws infringed upon its constitutional rights.
Studio 8’s appeal.
Disagreeing with the circuit court’s decision, Studio 8 filed an appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. Delaney argues that the case is a significant test of the balance between anti-discrimination laws and First Amendment rights and contends that Michigan law, by prohibiting businesses from refusing services based on protected characteristics, impermissibly encroaches on free speech and religious exercise.
Statements from attorneys and officials.
“This is a case of first impression,” Delaney told Michigan News Source. “A business can deny goods or services to a person in a protected class under rights protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.”
Delaney further argued that the recent inclusion of “gender identity” under the definition of “sex” in Michigan law should not override constitutional protections. He said in his statement, “Prior to 2024, the law did not define ‘sex,’ and it was the courts that expanded the definition to include gender identity.” He insists that this legal development does not nullify the salon’s First Amendment rights.
Delaney went on to explain that having a law that prohibits a business from speaking or writing that goods or services “will be” refused to a person in a protected class is “government censorship.”
Additionally, Delaney pointed out that the three individuals who viewed the Facebook statement were not even customers of Studio 8 and had never been denied service. Geiger’s Facebook post, he argues, did not target specific individuals but rather expressed a viewpoint protected under the First Amendment.
Delaney added, “The First Amendment gives Studio 8 the right to disagree about the correctness of and morality of gender identity” and says “the government may not punish protective speech, let alone future speech that something will happen at some point that is not clear or precise.”
Delaney stated, “Public-accommodation laws regulate conduct. Public-accommodation laws do not target speech but instead prohibit the act of discriminating against individuals in the provision of publicly available services.”
Others disagree with salon owner’s views.
Democratic public officials have weighed in on the case, reflecting its contentious nature. Traverse City Mayor expressed disappointment over any discriminatory behavior, while State Rep. Betsy Coffia (D-Traverse City) criticized the salon’s comments as “breathtaking hate and bigotry.” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel also condemned the statement, calling it “hateful and reprehensible.”
Delaney emphasizes the broader implications of the case, asserting, “It is the proudest boast of free speech jurisprudence that we protect speech we hate and the proudest boast of free exercise jurisprudence that we protect religious beliefs we find offensive.”
Meanwhile, an agency hearing at the Michigan Dept. of Civil Rights is scheduled for August 22nd. At that hearing, Delaney says that constitutional defenses are not allowed and “Studio 8 will not be allowed to assert its First Amendment rights to Freedom of Religion or Free exercise of Religion at the agency hearing.”
As the legal battle unfolds, the case of Studio 8 Hair Lab could serve as a crucial precedent in the ongoing debate over the scope and limits of anti-discrimination laws and First Amendment rights in Michigan and beyond.
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.