Non-Binary Gambler Loses Human Rights Case After Using Women’s Restroom

A Canadian gambler who identifies as non-binary took on a casino operator at a human rights tribunal.  The dispute was over bathrooms, and the plaintiff lost. That’s according to Castanet, a British Columbia news portal.

Christopher Iversen was playing slots at 5:30 a.m. at an unnamed Gateway Casinos property when nature called, according to filings to the BC Human Rights Tribunal in Vancouver.

Iversen reported in tribunal filings that they felt “ridiculed” and “belittled.” That’s after the casino manager informed them that “anyone who is transgendered must report to the customer service desk at the entrance to ‘check in’ to use the ‘other’ washroom.”

The casino then asked them to leave, according to Iverson.

Divergent Accounts

Gateway’s version of events differed wildly, the tribunal noted. The company, which operates 23 casinos in British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario, denies Iversen to leave.

Gateway claimed it asked Iversen to move the conversation to the casino lobby after Iversen became “angry and agitated” when security queried their use of the women’s washroom. Staff also informed them that a single, non-gendered washroom was available.

But Iversen threatened to sue the casino and inform the media, claiming Iversen knew high-ranking government officials and would “get rich” from the situation, according to Gateway’s account.

Far from being thrown out, Iversen remained writing notes and taking selfies for up to 15 minutes before finally leaving of their own accord, the operator claimed.

Iversen sent a letter of complaint to the casino 11 months later. The casino manager replied and apologized, adding that discriminatory behavior was not condoned at the establishment. The two parties then entered mediation, which failed.

$7K Settlement Rejected

When Iversen escalated the case to the human rights tribunal, the casino offered a $7,000 settlement, promised to update its policy and training and issued Iversen a letter of apology.

Iversen rejected this, declaring the case to be “groundbreaking.” They said unless it was heard by the tribunal, other businesses would be able to do the same.

The tribunal disagreed, determining that the case involved a “single, relatively brief incident,” which was without “identity-related insults, violence, or harassment.”

“The non-monetary remedies demonstrate that Gateway took the complainant’s allegations seriously and reflect an intention to avoid future events,” the tribunal panel wrote.

The $7,000, which the panel described as “reasonable,” remains on the table.