Hair salon owner refuses transgender customers – ‘seek services at a local pet groomer instead’

A hair salon owner in Michigan, who suggested that transgender customers should “seek services at a local pet groomer instead,” has received the verdict of a lengthy legal dispute.

Continue reading for more details.

The Michigan Civil Rights Commission determined that Studio 8 Hair Lab breached state anti-discrimination laws after owner Christine Geiger made Facebook posts in 2023 declaring that transgender individuals were “not welcome” at her establishment.

The commission mandated the salon to delete the posts, offer services without regard to customers’ gender identity, undergo anti-discrimination training, and issue a statement recognizing its responsibilities under Michigan law.

“While free speech is important, telling people they are unwelcome at your business crosses a line,” commented one social media user.

The Facebook posts led to numerous complaints.

The situation began in July 2023 when Geiger, who runs Studio 8 Hair Lab in Traverse City, Michigan, posted several messages regarding transgender individuals.

One of her posts stated, “If a person identifies as anything other than a man or woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer.”

It went on to say, “You are not welcome at this salon. Period.”

Geiger also mentioned that if customers requested staff to use their preferred pronouns, employees might just refer to them as “hey you.”

In a previous post, she maintained that her business had the right to deny service.

“This is America; free speech. This small business has the right to refuse services.”

She also took aim at Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and the legislation that broadens civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.

The posts quickly circulated online and attracted significant backlash.

From July to November 2023, over 20 complaints were filed with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights. Three of these complaints ultimately laid the groundwork for the state’s legal action against the salon.

Even though none of the complainants had tried to schedule an appointment, state officials indicated that Michigan law also forbids businesses from publicly stating that protected groups are unwelcome.

Katie Adraianse, a spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, informed the Daily Mail that the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act prevents businesses from making statements that suggest services will be denied based on someone’s gender identity or gender expression.

The commission determined that the salon breached Michigan law.

After nearly three years of investigations and hearings, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission concluded that Studio 8 Hair Lab violated the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

The commission found that Geiger’s Facebook posts exceeded mere personal opinion, as they publicly indicated that transgender customers would not be served.

Commission Chair Luke Londo remarked that the ruling set a significant legal precedent.

“This ruling establishes that no business can publicly discriminate without facing consequences, whether in person or via social media.”

The commission also determined that Studio 8 qualifies as a public accommodation and is thus subject to Michigan’s anti-discrimination laws.

Officials pointed out that Geiger’s Facebook posts did not reference religious beliefs as the reason for denying service to transgender customers. They also mentioned that she had been informed about the hearings but opted not to participate.

The commission determined that the salon retaliated against the complainants after Geiger subsequently filed a lawsuit against them for reporting her Facebook posts to state authorities.

Salon mandated to eliminate posts and undergo training

As part of the decision, Studio 8 Hair Lab is required to take down the Facebook posts and avoid making similar statements in the future.

The salon is also obligated to provide services to all customers, irrespective of their gender identity or gender expression.

Within 120 days, Geiger is required to finish anti-discrimination training and display a notice within the salon that outlines Michigan’s anti-discrimination law.

Additionally, the salon must post a statement on its Facebook page acknowledging its obligation to adhere to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

The mandated statement states: “Studio 8 Hair Salon is a public accommodation under the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.”

It further states, “We are required and committed to comply… by offering our goods and services to all potential and existing clients and customers without regard to their gender identity or gender expression.”

The commission also instructed Studio 8 to cover the complainants’ legal expenses and attorney fees, with an administrative law judge to decide the precise amount.

Details about the ruling will be communicated to Michigan’s Board of Cosmetology, which may consider whether to take disciplinary action against Geiger’s professional license.

Geiger intends to appeal the ruling

Geiger’s attorney, David Delaney, mentioned that the salon plans to contest the ruling in court.

He contended that the matter revolves around speech instead of discriminatory actions.

“This case focuses on what was said, not on what was done.”

Delaney further asserted that no customer was ever refused an actual haircut or salon service.

“Speech does not equate to an act of discrimination.”

Delaney stated that Geiger is a Christian who believes that God created only men and women, and she aimed for her salon to embody those beliefs.

He also claimed that Studio 8 was hindered from fully exercising its constitutional rights concerning free speech, religious freedom, and the right to a jury trial.

State officials dismissed that claim, arguing that the case was not about Geiger’s personal beliefs but rather about publicly stating that certain customers would not receive service.

Studio 8 has a 30-day window to appeal the commission’s ruling in circuit court.

If no appeal is submitted, the Michigan Attorney General’s Office may pursue a court order mandating the salon to adhere to the ruling.

The conflict arose following Michigan’s enhanced LGBTQ+ protections.

The legal battle commenced shortly after Michigan broadened civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.

Governor Gretchen Whitmer enacted legislation that included sexual orientation and gender identity in the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

While those amendments officially came into effect in February 2024, state officials pointed out that Michigan courts had already interpreted the law as safeguarding individuals from discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

The Michigan Civil Rights Commission first embraced that interpretation in 2018.

A judge from the Michigan Court of Claims upheld protections for gender identity in 2020, and the Michigan Supreme Court determined in 2022 that discrimination based on sexual orientation was also forbidden under the law.

In a separate action, Studio 8 filed a lawsuit against the three complainants in 2023 to stop the civil rights proceedings.

A judge dismissed that lawsuit in 2024, labeling it as frivolous and concluding it was filed to intimidate or retaliate against the complainants.

The separate appeal is still awaiting a decision from the Michigan Court of Appeals.

Feel free to share this with others so they can stay updated on the latest news.