A Michigan hair salon owner who told transgender customers to “seek services at a local pet groomer instead” has learned the outcome of a years-long legal battle.
The Michigan Civil Rights Commission ruled that Studio 8 Hair Lab violated state anti-discrimination law after salon owner Christine Geiger posted messages on Facebook in 2023 saying transgender people were “not welcome” at her business.
Highlights
- A Michigan Civil Rights Commission ruled that Studio 8 Hair Lab violated state anti-discrimination law.
- The salon owner was ordered to remove the posts, complete anti-discrimination training, serve customers regardless of gender identity.
- The commission said publicly advertising that a protected group is unwelcome is unlawful.
The decision requires the salon to remove the posts, undergo anti-discrimination training, and serve customers regardless of their gender identity.
"Speech is one thing, but telling people they aren't welcome at your business is another,” wrote one netizen.
A Michigan hair salon owner’s Facebook post sparked complaints after transgender customers were told to stay away
Image credits: Christine Geiger/Facebook
The case began in July 2023, when Christine Geiger, owner of Studio 8 Hair Lab in Traverse City, Michigan, published several Facebook posts about transgender people.
One of the posts read, "If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer."
It continued, "You are not welcome at this salon. Period."
Geiger also wrote that if customers asked staff to use their preferred pronouns, employees might call them “hey you.”
In another post, she argued that her business had the right to refuse service.
"This is America; free speech. This small business has the right to refuse services.”
She also criticized Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and legislation expanding civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ people.
Image credits: chokniti/Adobe Stock (Not the actual photo)
After the posts spread online, they drew widespread criticism.
More than 20 complaints were submitted to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights between July and November 2023.
Three of those complaints eventually became the basis for the state’s legal case against the salon.
Although none of the three complainants had actually tried to book an appointment, state officials explained that Michigan law also covers advertising that publicly tells protected groups they are unwelcome at a business.
Katie Adraianse, spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, said the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act prohibits businesses from publishing statements indicating services will be denied because of someone’s gender identity or expression, per Daily Mail.
After nearly three years of investigations and hearings, the Civil Rights Commission ruled the salon broke state law
Image credits: Norbu GYACHUNG/Unsplash (Not the actual photo)
Image credits: integrity4kids
Image credits: LaBeaujardine
The Michigan Civil Rights Commission ruled that Studio 8 Hair Lab had violated the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
The commission found that Geiger’s Facebook posts were beyond expressing a personal opinion because they publicly told transgender customers they would not be welcome at the salon.
Commission chair Luke Londo said the decision creates an important legal precedent.
"This ruling sets the precedent that no business can publicly discriminate without consequence, whether it occurs face-to-face or over social media."
Image credits: Studio 8 Hair Lab/Facebook
The commission also found that Studio 8 qualified as a business open to the public and therefore had to follow Michigan’s anti-discrimination laws.
Officials noted that Geiger’s Facebook posts never cited religious beliefs as the reason for refusing transgender customers. They also said she had been notified about the hearings but chose not to participate.
The commission further ruled that the salon retaliated against the complainants after Geiger later sued them for reporting her posts to state officials.
Following the hearing, the salon owner has now been ordered to make several changes
Image credits: Stavrialena Gontzou/Unsplash (Not the actual photo)
As part of the ruling, Studio 8 Hair Lab must remove the Facebook posts and stop publishing similar messages in the future.
The salon has also been ordered to provide services to customers regardless of their gender identity or gender expression.
Within 120 days, Geiger must complete anti-discrimination training.
She must also display a notice inside the salon explaining Michigan’s anti-discrimination law.
In addition, the salon has been ordered to publish a statement on its Facebook page acknowledging that it must comply with the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
Image credits: callisto/Adobe Stock (Not the actual photo)
Image credits: jcampe331
Image credits: Jasperdoodle75
The required statement said, "Studio 8 Hair Salon is a place of public accommodation under the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act."
It continued, "We are obligated and intend to comply... by providing our goods and services to all prospective and current clients and customers without regard to their gender identity or gender expression."
The commission also ordered Studio 8 to pay the complainants’ legal costs and attorney fees. An administrative law judge will decide the exact amount.
Information about the ruling will also be shared with Michigan’s Board of Cosmetology, which could decide whether disciplinary action should be taken against Geiger’s professional license.
Geiger said the case is about free speech and plans to appeal
Image credits: phpetrunina14/Adobe Stock (Not the actual photo)
Geiger’s attorney, David Delaney, said the salon intends to challenge the decision in court.
He argued that the case centers on speech rather than actions. "This case is about what someone said. Not what someone did."
Delaney also argued that no individual was ever denied an actual haircut or salon service.
"Speech is not an act of discrimination."
According to Delaney, Geiger is a Christian who believes God created only men and women and wanted her salon to reflect those beliefs.
He also claimed Studio 8 was prevented from fully arguing its constitutional rights relating to free speech, freedom of religion and a jury trial.
Image credits: Christine Geiger/Facebook
State officials disagreed with that argument.
The commission said the case was not about Geiger’s personal opinions but about publicly advertising that certain customers would not be served.
Studio 8 now has 30 days to appeal the ruling in circuit court.
If no appeal is filed, the Michigan Attorney General’s Office could seek a court order requiring the salon to comply with the commission’s decision.
The legal dispute began after Michigan expanded LGBTQ+ protections
Image credits: Christine Geiger/Facebook
The dispute began shortly after Michigan expanded its civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ people.
Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation adding s*xual orientation and gender identity to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
Although those amendments officially took effect in February 2024, state officials noted that Michigan courts had already ruled that discrimination based on gender identity and s*xual orientation was covered under the law.
The Michigan Civil Rights Commission first interpreted the law that way in 2018.
A Michigan Court of Claims judge upheld protection for gender identity in 2020, while the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that discrimination based on s*xual orientation was also prohibited.
Separately, Studio 8 sued the three complainants in 2023, attempting to stop the civil rights case.
A judge dismissed that lawsuit in 2024, calling it frivolous and concluding it had been filed to intimidate or retaliate against the complainants.
That separate appeal is still pending before the Michigan Court of Appeals.
"Pure evil and pretty stupid too," wrote one user
Image credits: bigstu207
Image credits: Michelle60711
Image credits: eastcoastariel
Image credits: Michell71078349
Image credits: Onomanopoeiato1
Image credits: ChrissieSeeB
Image credits: PrincessofNYC23
Image credits: DianaPlant5
Image credits: berniebrobetsy
Image credits: Windependent2
Image credits: socalmich1208
Image credits: rnj114
Image credits: Aoibheil195548
Image credits: toggy500
Image credits: k1of4
Image credits: sanders_cindy
Image credits: BruceBa21417771
Image credits: Andie00471
Image credits: SuzanneBos43679
Image credits: KenWarnock
Image credits: CuteCoffeeWench