Skip to main content

LOWERY v. BURSE

M.D. Ga.June 14, 2021No. 5:20-cv-00443
Plaintiff WinLaSalle Court Sports & Health Club$2,000 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
440 Civil Rights: Other
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal
State
Georgia

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationHostile Work Environment

Outcome

The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the Civil Rights Commission's award of punitive damages and attorney fees to Potter for discrimination based on sexual orientation at a health club, holding that the club's enforcement of a socializing prohibition against Potter was discriminatory and not uniformly applied.

What This Ruling Means

**Lowery v. Burse: Discrimination at Health Club** This case involved a worker at LaSalle Court Sports & Health Club who faced discrimination based on their sexual orientation. The employee claimed they were treated unfairly through selective enforcement of workplace rules and subjected to a hostile work environment because of who they were. The court ruled in favor of the employee, finding that the health club had indeed discriminated against them. Specifically, the court determined that the club applied a "no socializing" rule unfairly—enforcing it against this employee because of their sexual orientation while not applying the same rule consistently to other workers. The employee was awarded $2,000 in damages, and the employer also had to pay attorney fees and punitive damages. **What this means for workers:** This ruling reinforces that employers cannot selectively enforce workplace policies based on an employee's sexual orientation or other protected characteristics. If your employer has rules that apply to everyone, those rules must be enforced fairly and equally. Workers who face discriminatory treatment—including having policies applied unfairly because of who they are—have legal protections and may be entitled to compensation for the harm they suffered.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.