WA commission votes to let nude businesses exclude patrons with male genitalia from women’s areas
After spending years harassing a Christian-owned Korean women’s spa over its refusal to admit patrons with male genitalia, the Washington State Human Rights Commission has approved an emergency exception that appears to permit the very restriction at the center of the legal battle.
Olympus Spa has asked the US Supreme Court to review the commission’s enforcement, and Washington faces a December 4 deadline to respond. The commission voted October 22 to change its rules, explicitly citing pending litigation.
Commissioners returned from a closed executive session to discuss and vote on the emergency amendment in open session. Executive Director Barbara Harris explained that the proposed change had been discussed behind closed doors before sharing the language on her screen.
The proposed addition to WAC 162-32-060 states: “In the limited circumstance where a business requires nudity as a central purpose of the business, such business may maintain a rule that entry to spaces where nudity is required be based on genital characteristics.”
“This is the proposed rule change that was discussed in executive session,” Harris said, according to a transcript of the meeting.
The commission’s chair then presented a motion invoking the need to preserve general welfare and declaring that waiting for the usual notice and public-comment process would be contrary to the public interest.
“We adopt the emergency rule as presented to us and direct the executive director to work with the AG’s office to file the emergency rule effective immediately,” the chair said.
After the motion was made and seconded, the chair explained: “We’re making a narrow change to address pending litigation. And we are very committed to protecting transgender rights in the state of Washington.”
The motion passed by voice vote, with no opposition audible in the supplied transcript. It is now up to the state Attorney General to file the updated rule.
The action comes from the same agency that determined Olympus Spa’s admission policy was discriminatory, required policy changes and staff training, and defended its enforcement through federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Now, with the spa seeking Supreme Court intervention, the commission has approved an exception that could provide relief the business has spent years fighting to obtain.
Although commissioners did not identify Olympus Spa by name in the quoted discussion, the exception closely matches the dispute that triggered the agency’s enforcement against the family business.
The Olympus Spa offers traditional Korean jjimjilbang services at its Lynnwood and Tacoma-area locations. Customers bathe together and receive full-body scrubs in communal areas where nudity is required.
The owners say separating men and women reflects both Korean cultural traditions and their Christian belief that men and women should not be unclothed together outside marriage. Customers include girls as young as 13. The spa permitted trans-identifying males who had undergone genital surgery.
The dispute began with a 2020 discrimination complaint from Haven Wilvich, a biological male who identifies as a woman and had not undergone genital surgery at the time of the alleged denial. The spa said it had no record of a visit or membership application, and employees did not recall the interaction.
The commission nevertheless determined that the admission policy violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination. State officials required changes to the policy, removal of “biological women” language from the spa’s website, and staff training.
The spa and other plaintiffs sued in 2022, asserting violations of religious freedom, free speech and freedom of association. A federal district court dismissed the challenge, and a divided Ninth Circuit panel upheld that dismissal in May 2025. The court denied rehearing in March 2026.
During oral arguments, Judge Margaret McKeown compared the admission restriction to racial segregation. In November 2024, she drew a parallel with businesses restricting entry to white customers.
Attorneys with Pacific Justice Institute and Alliance Defending Freedom petitioned the Supreme Court in August. Florida and 18 other states subsequently filed a brief supporting review. The justices have not yet agreed to hear the case.
The commission approved its emergency exception October 22. The following day, Washington requested a second extension to respond to the Supreme Court petition. The court granted that request October 26, moving the deadline to December 4. The state’s request cited its attorneys’ workload; it did not identify the rule change as the reason for seeking more time.
The amendment’s effect on the lawsuit remains unresolved. It could permit the spa to maintain the genital-based restriction underlying the dispute, but it does not itself overturn the Ninth Circuit’s decision or establish that all claims have been resolved.
Nor does the language broadly restore sex-based restrictions in ordinary locker rooms or restrooms. It specifically concerns businesses requiring nudity as a central purpose. The published rule otherwise continues to require access consistent with gender identity, including where people undress together.
Under Washington law, emergency rules generally take effect upon filing with the Code Reviser unless a later date is specified. Each emergency adoption may last no longer than 120 days. Whether the commission intends to make this exception permanent remains an unanswered question for a business that has already spent years contesting the agency’s position.
Comments