Sandpoint City Council repeals nondiscrimination ordinance after transgender woman spotted in YMCA bathroom

An apparent transgender woman using a Sandpoint YMCA women’s locker room last month sparked public outcry, three hours of public testimony at Wednesday night’s City Council meeting and, ultimately, the repealing of the city’s 14-year-old nondiscrimination ordinance.

The council favored a new ordinance that aligns with nondiscrimination provisions of federal and state civil rights law. Sandpoint Mayor Jeremy Grimm cast the tie-breaking vote after two other motions – tabling the decision and pushing it to voters to decide – failed.

Councilman Rick Howarth said the council needed to protect biological women in locker rooms and asked why the rights of transgender women were more important than the rights and safety of biological women. Keeping the code as is would allow “predators” to be in women’s bathrooms, and if something “bad” happened, the blame would fall on the council, Howarth said.

“We must stand up for the rights of women,” he said.

Grimm proposed the new ordinance after a lifeguard at the Litehouse YMCA in Sandpoint encountered what she believed was a transgender woman in the women’s locker room the afternoon of Oct. 15, according to a Facebook post by “Scott Herndon for Idaho.”

Herndon is chairman of the Bonner County Republican Party and was one of the more than 80 members of the public who spoke at Wednesday’s meeting.

The lifeguard told her superiors about it, and they said there was nothing they could do, per company policy. A Sandpoint police officer also said no laws were broken.

The Litehouse YMCA could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday, but a statement from the facility posted on Herndon’s Facebook page says it adheres to Idaho code and city code that states people can use the bathroom and locker room that aligns with their gender identity.

“At the YMCA of the Inland Northwest, we are committed to fostering inclusive, welcoming communities where all individuals can thrive,” the statement says. “We stand firmly against bias, hatred, and discrimination in any form, and we actively work toward equity and human dignity for all.”

Grimm said at the start of the council meeting that the YMCA incident caused confusion for everyone and raised difficult questions about privacy, so he drafted a “pragmatic solution” that addressed it. He said he worried any man can walk into a woman’s bathroom and claim he is transgender.

“Any woman, including school-aged girls like my own daughter, do not feel comfortable showering or changing alongside a biological male,” Grimm said. “For any woman I know, personal boundaries matter deeply. They rely on single-sex changing spaces to feel comfortable, secure and respected. Protecting those spaces is not about rejecting anyone’s humanity. It’s about recognizing that women’s privacy needs are real, valid and worthy of protection.”

The city’s nondiscrimination ordinance adopted in 2011 was written to ensure all Sandpoint residents, “regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity/expression enjoy the full benefits of citizenship and are afforded equal opportunities for employment, housing, commercial property, and the use of public accommodations,” according to the code.

The code was intended to supplement state and federal civil rights law prohibiting discrimination in employment, public accommodations and housing.

The code stated that discriminatory acts could include requiring someone to pay a larger sum than the uniform rates charged other persons; refusing to sell, rent or lease property; refusing to allow someone to stay at or frequent a business; or refusing to hire someone because of their gender identity or sexual orientation.

Anyone who believed they received unequal treatment could have filed a complaint with a mayor-appointed Sandpoint human relations review board under the original ordinance. The code stated that if mediation between the parties was unsuccessful or undesired, the review board and law enforcement would investigate the allegations.

The matter would then be referred to the city attorney if the review board found a discriminatory act occurred. Violation of the code constituted a misdemeanor.

A legal representative for the city said one or two discrimination complaints have been leveled since the ordinance passed. Neither resulted in criminal charges. He said he did not expect either ordinance to open up the city to lawsuits because they both defer to state and federal laws.

The new ordinance eliminates the review board and local complaint process. Now, discrimination complaints can be filed with state and federal agencies, like the Idaho Human Rights Commission and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In a letter from Grimm to the City Council, Grimm wrote the previous nondiscrimination ordinance likely extended “beyond the city’s legal authority,” while the new one prevents litigation risk and “reduces community division.”

Grimm questioned at the council meeting whether a small municipal government like Sandpoint should decide who has the legal right to enter bathrooms and locker rooms at every private business, church, gym or public facility in town.

“These are complex civil rights questions that, in my opinion, belong to the state or federal law, not to local ordinance or enforcement by a politically appointed review board,” he said. “I believe it’s inappropriate for the city of Sandpoint to insert itself into intimate spaces where privacy norms, safety, expectation and longstanding social boundaries already exist. Setting reasonable gender boundaries for changing rooms does not diminish our respect for people whose gender identity does not align with their biological sex. They too deserve to feel safe, seen and supported.”

Sandpoint, Bonner County and other area residents packed the council chambers Wednesday and overflowed into the hallway, parking lot and a separate room where they could watch the council meeting on a monitor. Well over 100 additional people watched on Zoom, and a few of them addressed the council, Grimm said.

Most people spoke in favor of repealing the 2011 ordinance.

They voiced fear about biological men using women’s locker rooms, saying it would make them uncomfortable and could lead to sexual violence against women. They also believed transgender women’s rights were being held above biological women’s rights and that state and federal laws already protected people against discrimination, so a city ordinance was unneeded.

“I can’t believe we’re here and we’re even having this discussion,” one woman said.

Some men said they worried about their wives and daughters changing in the locker rooms at the YMCA.

Others were sexual assault victims who tried to fight back tears when voicing their fear. One woman cried for about one minute before regaining her composure to speak.

“If you have been assaulted, you would understand our fear,” she said.

Bonner County Sheriff Daryl Wheeler and Herndon supported repealing the ordinance, and the Idaho Legislature will address these issues next year, they said.

“It’s a safe course for now, and let the Legislature weigh in,” Herndon said in support of the new ordinance.

Those who voiced support of the previous ordinance said they did not want to rush into a decision based on fear and asked that more businesses and human rights organizations be consulted. The old ordinance filled gaps not covered by state and federal laws, they said.

Voting to repeal is “voting to make some forms of discrimination acceptable in Sandpoint,” one man said.

Councilmen-elect Joe Tate and Joshua Torrez also asked to pause before a decision was made. Tate said he wanted to move forward “without undoing laws and ordinances that have protected people for 12-plus years.”

Torrez said the original ordinance has not created lawsuits, financial burdens or problems since enacted.

“The ordinance itself has worked quietly and effectively for over a decade,” he said.

Others said last month’s incident at the YMCA was simply a transgender woman using the locker room and they didn’t understand the uproar by many residents.

“Why are we even going down this road for one instance where no one was threatened,” one woman said.

Another woman said she spoke in favor of the ordinance in 2011 and continued to stand behind it.

“It is a commitment, one our city made to protect real people from real discrimination,” she said.

Councilwoman Pam Duquette said other cities have nondiscrimination policies like Sandpoint’s and that terms like “mentally ill,” “perverts” and “delusional” used in Wednesday night’s meeting were not a fair representation of the transgender community. She said it was unfortunate the issue turned into “emotionally charged” and “religious” one, and was “dividing our community unnecessarily.”

She hoped to table the decision so the city could meet with other local leaders, businesses and community members.

“I see no reason to rush impulsively to rewrite our NDO, and I find it incomprehensible we have been put in this situation,” Duquette said.

Duquette motioned to table the ordinance to January, but that failed, with Grimm breaking the tie.

Councilman Kyle Schreiber proposed letting voters decide which ordinance to adopt, but that motion also failed with a tie-breaking Grimm vote.

Duquette said Grimm was ignoring the 80 businesses, 400 members of the Sandpoint Alliance for Equality and many of the community embers who spoke and wrote to the council.

Grimm responded that he was not ignoring the thousands of businesses that did not respond and that he was “not ignoring the most important thing, which is my conscience,” he said.

Councilmen Joel Aispuro, Justin Dick and Howarth voted for the new ordinance while Duquette, Schreiber and Council President Deb Ruehle voted against it.

“I think the only thing we are accomplishing is dividing the community,” Ruehle said.

Aispuro responded, “You only let it divide, it if you let it.”