The Traverse City salon Studio 8 Hair Lab, which garnered national attention in July for anti-trans online posts made by its owner, Christine Geiger, has been accused of discrimination by the Michigan Department of Civil Rights ( MDCR ).
In an original Facebook post from July, Geiger stated that she was protected by “free speech” and that her salon would not provide services to transgender and nonbinary persons.
In the article, Geiger requested that people who identify as anything other than men or women contact a nearby pet groomer. You are not permitted to enter this shop.
According to the accusation, Michigan legislation “makes it unlawful for Studio 8 to print, circulate, post, mail, or often cause to be published,” which means that sex-related goods or services will not be accepted or that someone’s patronage may be “objectionable, unexpected, intolerable, and undesirable” for the same reason.
Geiger’s post and subsequent doubling down on her stances, according to MDCR Director John Johnson in a press conference on Wednesday morning, were in violation of the Elliott- Larsen Civil Rights Act ( ELCRA ) of Michigan.
Johnson remarked,” This is not a difficult case.” It is not a situation that depends on intricate legal theories or necessitates expensive or difficult justifications. As the owner of a company providing services to the public in the state of Michigan, Christine Geiger is subject to legal obligations.
Geiger was asked to comment at the shop by The Advance, but there was a long phone.
According to MDCR officials, the accusation is not free speech but rather immoral advertisement. Even though Geiger did n’t actually reduce someone from her salon because of their gender identity, the charge claims that the comments she made also had a negative impact on LGBTQ+ members of the community.
According to the command,” As a direct and proximate result of Participant’s unlawful discrimination, Claimants L. M., H. S. and M.” have lost the right to full and equal satisfaction of public accommodations according to respondents ‘ published claims.
Marcellina Trevino, the MDCR chairman of police, stated that the department’s analytical process, which included attempting to set up a conciliation meeting with Geiger, was carried out to ascertain whether there was any basis for the charge of discrimination.
According to Trevino,” Our staff attorney made an effort to schedule a meeting with [Geiger ] to discuss the complaints ‘ issues and the admissible evidence we discovered.” ” To our despair, the respondent declined to participate in mediation, so our employees lawyer drafted a demand that was filed with the Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules this morning.”
The three people who complained to the MDCR were named in Geiger’s personal lawsuit, which she filed on October 25. She claimed that the town of Traverse City had a right to “use its talents and the evocative platform they have to observe and promote the design of God for men and women.”
Trevino stated that the three accusers, two of whom are genderfluid, are protected from certain types of retaliation under ELCRA, even though MDCR officers were unable to comment on Geiger’s continued complaint.
Traverse City responds to anti-trans shop plan by saying,” Welcoming persons exist here.”
According to Trevino, there are safeguards against retaliation under the Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act for taking part in a protected exercise, like reporting an unlawful discrimination to our office.
The Studio 8 case’s subsequent action will be to wait for a hearing before an administrative law judge. According to the MDCR’s cost, Geiger is required to compensate the claims for the emotional distress and “mental pain” her posts caused. State registration credentials for Studio 8 and Geiger may be revoked for ELCRA violations if the decision is made following a hearing.
Bryant Osikowicz, MDCR Director of Legal Affairs, stated that the accusation should n’t be interpreted as a violation of freedom of speech or religion.
Osikowicz said,” I did just say that free speech is no absolute.” We were very particular in our accusation that you cannot cry flames in a crowded drama, which is the classic case from laws school. This is not a case of free conversation. This situation involves unfair advertising.
DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX ARE THE MORNINGHEADLINES.
