Federal court rules women’s nude spa in Washington cannot exclude trans customers with male genitalia

A federal court ruled that a women’s nudist spa in Washington state may not ban transgender women with male genitalia, rejecting the spa’s claim that being required to serve these customers violated their First Amendment rights.

In 2020, Haven Wilvich, who identifies as a “non-binary trans woman,” filed a complaint with the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) after allegedly being turned away from the Olympus Spa in Lynnwood, Washington, for having a penis.

Olympus, a traditional Korean spa with multiple locations nationwide, offers body scrubs and massages and requires nudity in its pools, catering exclusively to a single-sex clientele. However, the spa does welcome post-operative transgender women—those who have undergone gender-affirming surgery.

Washington State Law Against Discrimination

The WSHRC claimed that the company's policy violated the Washington State Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), which prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, sex, veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability.

After settling with the WSHRC in October 2021, Olympus Spa filed a lawsuit claiming that Washington’s enforcement of the law violated its rights to freedom of speech, religion, and association.

However, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled this week that none of these provisions applied to the case.

The spa argued that the state violated its free speech rights by requiring the WSHRC to compel it to change its website policy.

The spa also claimed its religious freedom was violated by being forced to allow customers with male genitalia to share nude facilities with female patrons, some as young as 13, which they said conflicted with their Christian beliefs about modesty. Both claims were rejected by the court.

The Ninth Circuit also rejected Olympus’s argument that the right to “free association” applied, stating that the spa does not qualify as an intimate association.

Central to the decision was the state's broad definition of sexual orientation. "Washington opted for a broad definition," the Ninth Circuit stated.

However, the decision left many people dissatisfied, as they oppose requiring a private establishment to legally allow nude biological men among biological women—an order that could fundamentally disrupt the sex-segregated business model central to Korean spas.