CHRO and advocates spar over SB 399’s proposal to allow separate exercise areas; agency urges conduct enforcement
Loading...
Summary
Tanya Hughes of the state CHRO told the Judiciary Committee she supports procedural clarifications in SB 399 but warned that creating separate gym areas for protected classes risks segregating victims rather than holding harassers accountable; small‑business owners and transgender advocates offered contrasting views.
Tanya Hughes, executive director of the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, told the committee that sections 2–7 of SB 399 contain procedural changes the CHRO supports — including clarifications on early legal intervention timing and processing — but she expressed deep reservations about section 1, which would permit separate exercise areas in gyms based on protected class.
“We should be ensuring that anyone who engages in harassment ... is dealt with on an individual level and removed from the facility if necessary,” Hughes said, arguing that codifying separate areas would shift the responsibility away from enforcing bad actors and on to potential victims.
Other testimony split along lived‑experience and small‑business lines. Quinn Meehan, a Bethany resident and MSW intern, opposed section 1 as written, saying it would “create more harm than it prevents” by institutionalizing segregation and risking additional marginalization of transgender and non‑binary people. By contrast, Brianna Bruno, owner of Soulshine Yoga, asked the committee for a narrowly tailored carve‑out to permit anatomy‑specific programming such as prenatal and pelvic‑floor classes that require privacy and specialist instruction. Bruno said ongoing CHRO filings against her studio have created legal uncertainty for small businesses offering those classes.
CHRO’s managing legal director Michelle Venus Cuellar cautioned that the bill’s gym language is broad and recommended community engagement to refine definitions; she noted the agency is processing a case involving a yoga facility. Committee members probed the statute’s procedural mechanics — when parties may request early legal intervention, and how reopening closed complaints should operate — and CHRO staff described how ELI and reopening rules fit into their enforcement workflow.
The committee has not moved this section to a vote; lawmakers signaled interest in narrowing language and reconciling the CHRO’s procedural recommendations with community and business concerns.
