## Facts

- Back Bay Spas, Inc., doing business as Healthworks Fitness Center, owned and operated a commercial health club in Boston.
- Healthworks accepted only women as members and did not admit men.
- The club was developed and designed for women, with programs and facilities (including locker rooms and restrooms) geared to women’s use.
- Healthworks offered exercise equipment and classes, including offerings tailored to women’s concerns such as prenatal programs and nutrition counseling for women.
- Many members joined because the club was women-only; Healthworks presented evidence that some members—particularly older women experiencing body changes—felt intimidated exercising around men or worried about being watched.
- Healthworks also identified religious objections by some members to exercising in a coed setting.
- The male plaintiff applied for membership and was denied solely because he was a man.
- The plaintiff belonged to another health club across the street, and there were numerous coed exercise facilities in the Boston area with similar resources, but he sought to join Healthworks anyway.
- The plaintiff filed suit under Massachusetts public-accommodations law, G.L. c. 272, §§ 92A and 98, seeking an order requiring the club to admit him.
- The case came before the Superior Court on the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Is a fee-based, commercial health club that offers memberships to the public a “place of public accommodation” under G.L. c. 272, §§ 92A and 98, even if it limits membership to women?
2. Does a policy categorically excluding men from membership constitute prohibited discrimination “because of sex” under those statutes?
3. Do asserted privacy or comfort interests of members justify a women-only membership rule for a commercial public accommodation?

## Decision

- The court allowed the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
- Healthworks was treated as a place of public accommodation subject to G.L. c. 272, §§ 92A and 98.
- Denying membership to the plaintiff solely because he was male constituted sex discrimination barred by the public-accommodations statute.
- The court rejected Healthworks’ argument that members’ asserted privacy and comfort interests created a legal basis to exclude men categorically from a covered public accommodation.
- The availability of other coed health clubs to the plaintiff did not defeat the statutory violation; the statute addresses exclusion from the covered establishment itself.
- The court ordered relief consistent with the ruling that Healthworks could not deny membership on a sex-based basis.

## Legal Principles

- G.L. c. 272, §§ 92A and 98 broadly prohibit sex-based discrimination by places of public accommodation.
- A commercial business offering services to members of the public for a fee is generally a public accommodation, even if it uses a “members-only” structure.
- A facially sex-based membership rule is unlawful when a covered public accommodation denies access because of sex.
- Member preference, embarrassment, or discomfort does not create a general statutory exception permitting categorical sex exclusions in a commercial setting.
- The existence of other available facilities does not excuse discrimination at the defendant’s establishment.
- Where the public-accommodations statute provides no express exception allowing sex-based exclusions for this type of business, courts will enforce the statutory ban as written.

## Conclusion

The Massachusetts Superior Court held that Healthworks, a women-only commercial gym, operated as a place of public accommodation and therefore could not refuse membership to a man solely because of his sex; asserted privacy and comfort concerns of women members and the availability of other gyms did not supply a legal justification to maintain a categorical exclusion of men, so summary judgment entered for the plaintiff.


Foster v. Back Bay Spas, 1997 Mass. Super. LEXIS 194 (1997)