State finds Michigan hair salon's anti-trans posts violated law

LANSING, Mich. — A Traverse City hair salon that posted a Facebook message shunning transgender patrons was found to have violated a new tenet of Michigan's anti-discrimination law, the first test of the statute's new protections against discriminatory advertising based on gender identity.

After a three-year investigation and adjudication process, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission issued an opinion and order Monday finding the Studio 8 Hair Lab had violated rules against discriminatory advertising by posting messages to Facebook in 2023 stating it would not provide service to transgender individuals.

The order marks the first enforcement of discriminatory advertising under a 2023 law change that added gender identity and sexual orientation to the list of protected categories under Michigan's anti-discrimination law, the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

The order issued this week requires the salon owner to remove the social media posts; put up new, specific language affirming equal treatment; go through anti-discrimination training; and pay attorney fees and the complainants' costs.

"This ruling sets the precedent that no business can publicly discriminate without consequence, whether it occurs face-to-face or over social media," Michigan Civil Rights Commission Chair Luke Londo said in a statement.

Studio 8 Hair Lab filed suit against the Michigan Department of Civil Rights and the complainants who had filed reports with the department as the posts generated huge controversy and threats of investigation. That case was dismissed in circuit court but is under appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals.

It's not clear what options, if any, the salon has to appeal the civil rights commission order issued this week.

David Delaney, an attorney representing the salon and its owner Christine Geiger, said public accommodation laws are supposed to regulate "conduct," not "speech" on a social media platform. None of the complainants asked for or were denied access to the salon and the posts were based on Geiger's Christian views, Delaney said.

"Speech is not an act of discrimination," Delaney said in a statement to The Detroit News. "This case involves pure speech. No individual was denied a public service. At the hearing, Studio 8 was not allowed to defend itself with the U.S. Constitution."

The case stems from July 2023 social media posts Geiger made, one of which said the "LGB" of the LGBTQ community was welcome to Studio 8, but "the rest of it is not something I support."

In another post, Geiger suggested transgender individuals get their hair cut by a pet groomer.

“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. Period. Should you request to have a particular pronoun used please note we may simply refer to you as ‘hey you,'" the salon's July 2023 Facebook post said.

In August 2023, Geiger also posted photographs stating there are two genders and anything more "is a mental health issue," according to the civil rights commission's order.

The state civil rights department initiated investigations into the posts based on three complainants who said they were subject to discriminatory advertising after viewing the social media posts.

While Gov. Gretchen Whitmer had signed the anti-discrimination laws, including gender identity and sexual orientation, into law before the posts were made, the statute didn't take effect until February 2024.

The civil rights department, for its investigation and charging decision, instead relied on a July 2022 ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court, which found that the law's protections based on "sex" included sexual orientation. The high court kept in place a lower court ruling that "sex" included gender identity.

In 2023, Studio 8 filed a lawsuit against the three complainants, seeking injunctive relief. That case was dismissed as frivolous by the Grand Traverse Circuit Court in 2024 and is currently under appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals.

The Michigan Civil Rights Commission said Geiger was notified of hearings in her discrimination case but did not participate and, the commission argued, Geiger's posts never mentioned a religious basis for her comments.

"Respondent's posts had a harmful and detrimental impact on the LGBTQ+ community, particularly in Grand Traverse County," this week's order said.

The commission determined the hair salon was a place of public accommodation, as defined in the civil rights law, and the Facebook posts served as notice of the salon's intent to reject accommodations based on gender identity or expression. The panel also found the hair salon had retaliated against the claimants by filing suit against them in court.

The commission's order, issued Monday, requires Studio 8 to "cease and desist" from publishing discriminatory advertising, cease and desist from retaliating against the claimants and extend to all people "the full and equal enjoyment" of its facilities.

The order also requires Studio 8 to pay the claimants' attorney fees in connection with the administrative proceeding and the circuit court litigation. Those costs will be determined by an administrative law judge.

Geiger, under the order, is required to take anti-discrimination training within 120 days "for the purpose of informing and educating her regarding the legal obligations of places of public accommodation under our state and federal civil rights laws."

Geiger also must remove her discriminatory Facebook posts, the order said, and place the following statement on her page instead:

“Studio 8 Hair Salon is a place of public accommodation under the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. We are obligated and intend to comply with the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act by providing our goods and services to all prospective and current clients and customers without regard to their gender identity or gender expression.”

Geiger also must place within her business, in a "conspicuous location," a statement regarding the state's antidiscrimination laws prepared by the Michigan Department of Civil Rights.

Under the order, Geiger also must inform the state Board of Cosmetology that she has violated the state's anti-discrimination law.

_____