Health club vs. gay rights at the Minnesota Supreme CourtSave

Share

Copy link

X (Twitter)FacebookLinkedInBlueskyEmail

GEORGE BOOSEY: The case dates back to April of 1983. Donald Potter, a member of the LaSalle Sports and Health Club, had been working out with weights when he laid down the equipment and walked over to converse with another man. An employee of the club noticed the two talking and told them they should either get back to their workouts or leave. According to Health Club attorney Steven Jamar, the conversation between the two men created a, quote, inappropriate environment, one that would have made other members of the club uncomfortable. Jamar said it was not a case of discrimination against Potter just because he was gay.

STEVEN JAMAR: It was not that Potter was a homosexual that per se that caused him to be spoken to. It was the inappropriate environment that was being created. If it had been heterosexuals horsing around or being macho or loud, that sort of conduct is equally prohibited.

In this case, the gay analogy to that is difficult to describe. But the limp wristed, or the effeminate, or the more giggly. And that's the kind of conduct that was also prohibited.

GEORGE BOOSEY: After being asked to either return to his workout or leave, Potter left and he filed a complaint with the Minneapolis Civil Rights Commission, which ruled that the Sports and Health Club had violated the city's civil rights ordinance. The club appealed to the state court of appeals, which upheld the Commission's rulings. So the club carried the appeal all the way to the state's highest court.

In asking the court to overturn the earlier rulings, the club called the incident trivial, and attorney Jamar compared it to people bumping shoulders on a crowded elevator. He asked the court not only to overturn the earlier decisions, but also to nullify a $1,000 judgment in Potter's behalf. But Potter's lawyer, Joyce Yetter, said the high court should uphold the lower court's ruling. She said the club was guilty of blatant discrimination against Potter for no other reason than his sexual preference.

JOYCE YETTER: These two men were challenged and were told to stop because they were homosexual men, not because of any particular conduct of the moment, because there was no conduct of the moment that the record was able to bring out.

GEORGE BOOSEY: Yetter also asked the court to uphold the $1,000 judgment in Potter's behalf, saying her client had suffered embarrassment and emotional stress because of the incident. The high court took the arguments under advisement. A ruling is expected within several weeks. I'm George Boosey at the Capitol.