To think this is unfair?

[Whenlifegivesyouoranges]

I joined a gym a few months ago and one of the main points for me was that it’s female only from 9-7 weekdays. I’ve just had this email from them and I’ll be cancelling as it no longer fits in with the times I can go, but this is ridiculous, right??

Well based on what we do know, customers are already restricted by gender.

They now want to further restrict that time by age.

So a female who is 20, can use the gym at any of the designated female times. But a female who is 30, can't.

Unless you own this particular gym, why are you at pains to defend this. Of course a business can do what it wants. Why it would want to do this, is beyond most people.

This nuts because if you're a woman 25 or older you can only use the gym between 9 and 4. Wtf are you paying for if you work normal hours and can no longer use it? Is it mixed use before 9? The whole thing is too weird and either the decision is flawed from the off or has been really badly communicated.

What a ridiculous response, people12-24 are not all teenagers!
To cater for them every week night at peak after work times, is totally unreasonable to your other clients.
just because a certain group can’t be bothered to keep exercising, do you think giving them a dedicated time slot will make them carry on? Highly unlikely!
just unfair to everyone else, but there’s always one on these posts that has to have an alternative view 🤨

They probably don't want "old biddies" being visible in their Tik Toks or Instagram videos.

What, 25 year olds?! 😂

I don't see why a twelve year old would be ok to work out with a 24 year old but would find it intimidating to see another woman of say 30, or 45?!
Just imagine if you had a 12 yo daughter and you wanted to introduce her to it but you couldn't because you're too old. It makes very little sense. And seems ageist.

It's a female only time slot! But restricting age in that slot! Have you stopped doubling down yet?? Embarrassed for you.

@Whenlifegivesyouoranges have you asked the gym management why they're breaking the law by discriminating on grounds of age - with no legitimate reason? Any joy there?

I'd have to leave that gym - being restricted to only a few hours a day of the women-only time because I'm over 24 is so discriminatory. And you know, some of us work in those hours ...

My gym (independent, mostly powerlifters but almost 50/50 men & women) has a really thriving youth programme which has now outgrown the available gym space, so the owners have leased a further space and the children - aged 10 through to 16 - have their own space and dedicated classes. It's brilliant!

I think they are breaking the law with that rule.

I'd be cancelling immediately. I'm not in the market for a women only gym anyway but I definitely wouldn't be willing to pay for a gym I couldn't access in peak hours. Don't think I'd bother with the argument unless it was literally the only place I could go, I'd rather just find somewhere else.

Why do people think age discrimination only applies to older people? Younger people can suffer from age discrimination too.

Secondly, you can treat people differently due to age, the law allows for it if it’s a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim.

If they are trying to implement something that benefits the youth (under 25 is generally considered youth) then it’s not discriminatory against older people. If they have school-aged guests attending the gym then I can imagine 4-7pm would be the peak time for them to attend. Following that, it’s “men-only” time at the gym. It also sounds like the gym isn’t large enough to fit all of their guests at once, given men and women cannot attend the gym at the same time, and they are now further splitting that by age.

Ultimately if the gym doesn’t have enough space for older females and younger females to attend simultaneously at the level of footfall they anticipate, no court would deem it age discrimination for the gym to make a timing split based on age.

However @657904I it's not clear just what the "legitimate aim" is in denying women 25+ access to the gym during those hours.

I don't think the Equality Act covers simply
trying to implement something that benefits the youth

There would need to be a clear case of young women being discriminated against by older women to justify this denial of access during women only hours at the gym. There would need to be a perceived deficit or even danger to the these younger women from the older women for this to be a "legitimate aim."

Who works 4pm - 7pm shift at the gym.......

It’s not about making things worse for older people though - it’s simply to make the gym more accessible to younger people if the timing presents a barrier for them. Given they have people as young as 12 attending, they have a stronger argument to make 4-7pm for younger females vs older females. It’s like having job listings that are specifically for women or BAME candidates - this is not illegal as it’s not discrimination against men or white candidates. It’s merely intended to level the playing field for those who otherwise do not typically access those roles.

plus the gym ultimately has data on who has memberships to their gym and their ages and times of attendance.

I don't think you quite understand the Equality Act. Making things worse for one group is a form of indirect discrimination. THe gym owners would have to show a "legitimate aim."

The reasoning, presumably for separating women's and men's use of the gym is that it gives each sex privacy dignity and safety. But it is highly unlikely that the same case could be made for different ages of the same sex.

Older women don't figure in the perpetration of sexual harassment crimes against younger women, for example, whereas men figure highly as perpetrators of sexual harassment against women.

I agree that young people can suffer age discrimination too (albeit I suspect it is less common, particularly in relation to older women). And I also recognise 25 as the cut off for “youth” though think it creates some complicated safeguarding challenges to lump 12-17s in unsupervised with 18-24s.

But if young women’s alienation from the gym is the legitimate aim they are trying to address (& some evidence of how the presence of older women contributes to that would be helpful) it does not seem proportionate to achieve that by excluding women age 25+ from the gym during ALL weekday non-office hours, and giving ALL of those slots to the younger cohort AND not to impact men’s access hours at all AND not to offer a fee reduction to the 25+ women.

edited to add in a missing phrase, without which this made less sense

& some evidence of how the presence of older women contributes to that would be helpful

Indeed! I can't think of any way in which the presence of older women might alienate younger women from the gym? If anyone can, please post.

The presence of men (older or younger), now ... that's a completely different kettle of fish.

Not only are they potentially in breach of the Equality Act but I think they may also be in breach of contract by changing the terms of use of the facility. If you have paid a joining fee and have cancellation penalties they should be refunded.

I would also say it seems utterly bizarre to alienate one of your core customer groups.

@Whenlifegivesyouoranges did you email them about this and the equality act?

Mums and kids after school club!!!

This is crazy..

Whaaat?! That’s so daft. YANBU.

You made Womans Health online OP

https://www.womenshealthmag.com/uk/fitness/a65395992/gym-bans-women-over-24/

Blimey. The gym had better hope that no one finds out their name.

I really hope the OP found out their reason for doing this and comes back and tells us. I'm really curious.