Reflecting on the Parks and Recreation Implications of Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) v. Edge Fitness, LLC et al.

Abstract

In Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) v. Edge Fitness, LLC, et al., two male patrons located in Connecticut filed complaints arguing that their gyms’ “women only” workout areas were a discriminatory practice. The gyms argued a gender privacy exception was present in the law, but the Connecticut Supreme Court ultimately disagreed. While the legal implications have been examined (Leudman, 2021), the parks and recreation managerial implications have not been discussed. Women’s only spaces are built into many modern fitness facility models and seeing them challenged may open the door to confusion and frustration from patrons. The purpose of this commentary is to reflect on the significance of CHRO v. Edge Fitness, LLC, et al. to parks and recreation spaces and the perspective parks and recreation practitioners can take into the future to reduce cases such as CHRO v. Edge Fitness, LLC, et al.