A B.C. man who alleged he was barred from a White Rock yoga studio because of his disclosure of a sex addiction has had his complaint dismissed by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal (HRT).
Erik Rutherford claimed he was discriminated against by Westcoast Hot Yoga after disclosing a mental disability, which included an “adjustment disorder” and addiction to pornography.
However, the yoga studio argued that Rutherford was banned because he was harassing staff and clients.
HRT member Emily Ohler dismissed Rutherford’s claim last Friday, finding he would not be able to prove the allegations at a full hearing and that Westcoast would likely be able to prove the harassment.
WATCH: Human Rights tribunal on transgender waxing complaint
“Where its staff and clients were being made to feel uncomfortable by persistent accusations, texts, emails and telephone calls, there is no obligation on the part of the Respondent to require its staff and clients to endure such behaviour from the Complainant,” Ohler wrote in her reasons for decision.
According to the ruling, the dispute began after Rutherford, an eight-year member of the studio, was turned down as a client by one of the studio’s employees who ran a side business as a health coach.
According to Westcoast, Rutherford told her he was “seeking help with sex addiction,” which the coach said was not her field.
Rutherford further acknowledged that he had sought the coach “out of trust as she had offered her health coaching business to me as she said she had male clients from our studio, but admittedly I contacted her partly due to my mental disability as she is an attractive healthy woman,” according to the decision.
Discrimination claim
Rutherford alleged that the coach told the business owner about his personal issues and that afterwards staff at the studio began to treat him differently and gossip about him.
He also alleged that a staff member he ran into at a coffee shop told him staff “don’t think you’re mentally healthy.”
In filings with the tribunal, Rutherford described himself as suffering from a “spiritual, mental, physical, and social and financially void disease with many different facets” that can “easily display itself in sexual manifestations especially when abstaining from drugs and alcohol.”
Rutherford said that while he had a history of addiction issues, he had been clean from “dangerous chemicals since early 2003.”
Allegations of harassment
In dismissing the application, Ohler pointed to Westcoast’s claim that after the coach turned Rutherford down, he “began phoning, texting and emailing Westcoast staff at all hours, making staff and some clients uncomfortable.”
The studio claimed Rutherford’s behaviour escalated, including making false accusations against teachers, and the business eventually asked the police for help managing the situation.
It also claimed Rutherford had been warned about staring at other clients during classes, and that some staff members no longer wanted to work alone because they feared for their safety.
Eventually, the studio barred Rutherford from attending and offered to refund his yoga pass.
WATCH: Human Rights Tribunal hears case of alleged transgender hate speech
Ohler also referred to a doctor’s letter provided by Rutherford, which she said did not contain an assessment or diagnosis.
Ohler ruled that she was “reasonably certain” Westcoast would be able to prove Rutherford’s mental health was not a factor in its conduct.
“Rather, it is reasonably certain the Respondent would establish its non-discriminatory explanation of having chosen to ask Mr. Rutherford to practice elsewhere because of his ‘constant harassing by text email and phone to teachers and the studio’ with his allegations of gossip and his upset over the Coach not accepting him as a client at her business – behaviours that were causing conflict and discomfort for staff and clients,” she wrote.
She added that even if Rutherford had been able to make a stronger case for the mental health complaint, Westcoast would likely have been able to prove that continuing to serve him would amount to undue hardship.
Comments