A non-binary individual, Alexe Frédéric Migneault, faced unexpected discrimination while seeking a haircut at a Longueuil, Quebec, salon amid hair loss challenges. Quebec’s Human Rights Tribunal recently ruled in their favor, ordering Station10 hair salon to pay $500 in damages for gender-based discrimination.
Booking Barrier Sparks Legal Battle
In 2023, Migneault attempted to book an advance appointment at Station10, where pre-booking offers lower prices via an online form. The form required selecting either ‘man’ or ‘woman,’ leaving no option for non-binary clients.
“Choose whichever is something said a lot to non-binary people, but it’s extremely tricky for us,” Migneault stated. “As soon as we pick one, we force ourselves to become either completely invisible or come out.”
Efforts to contact the salon for an alternative booking method failed, as staff insisted on using the online form and selecting a gender option. Emails revealed the salon assured that the choice would not affect the service and highlighted past accommodations for 2SLGBTQ+ clients.
Salon’s Response and Refusal to Settle
Migneault filed a complaint with Quebec’s Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission. The salon responded by offering three free haircuts and updating its website with a non-gendered booking option.
The commission found discrimination and recommended $500 in compensation to avoid litigation. Station10 co-owner Alexis Labrecque refused, stating staff were willing to provide the service but felt “extorted” after researching Migneault’s prior complaints, including a 2023 hunger strike advocating for a non-binary ‘X’ marker on provincial health insurance cards.
Tribunal Ruling Upholds Discrimination Finding
Migneault escalated to the Human Rights Tribunal, seeking over $12,000 for emotional distress and lost work time. The salon counterclaimed $5,000, alleging tribunal abuse.
The tribunal rejected both additional claims but confirmed discrimination, mandating the $500 payment. It noted the salon could have easily allowed booking without a gender selection, given its per-minute pricing model, without impacting revenue.
“For me, it’s not about the money,” Migneault said. “To see the tribunal affirm that non-binary people shouldn’t be forced to pick man or woman… I felt so happy and relieved.”
Labrecque indicated the salon is weighing an appeal, warning that businesses using gender-based pricing risk lawsuits without non-binary options. Clients have urged resistance, though he remains open to societal shifts.
Expert Views on Broader Implications
Pearl Eliadis, associate professor at McGill University’s Max Bell School of Public Policy and human rights lawyer, clarified the ruling sets no legal precedent for altering gender pricing but urges businesses to enhance accessibility.
“The best approach is to review the decision and ensure services respect trans and non-binary individuals,” Eliadis advised.
Celeste Trianon, founder of Montreal’s Juritrans legal clinic, described such incidents as common, deterring trans and non-binary people from new services due to past trauma.
“This ruling signals that discriminatory treatment in the private sector is unacceptable,” Trianon stated. “Salons can switch to pricing by hair length or service time to avoid gender selections.”
Trianon hopes for greater inclusion but cautions against politicizing the case amid vulnerable trans rights. Eliadis echoed: “Accept people for who they say they are.”
