On the afternoon of Wednesday, June 12th, attorneys for Port Townsend resident Julie Jaman filed a lawsuit on her behalf. The Center for American Liberty (CAL) registered the official complaint and demand for a jury trial in the Western District Court of Washington.

 

 

As we reported in March, legal action was threatened if the City and the YMCA did not meet demands for redress of Jaman’s grievances, including reinstating her pool privileges. The YMCA balked until early May, then declined to settle. The City never responded at all. From the law firm’s official press release:

“The City and YMCA’s failure to respond to Julie’s requests highlights their disregard for public safety,” said Harmeet Dhillon, CEO and Founder of The Center for American Liberty. “By prioritizing political ideology over the protection of children, they have set a dangerous precedent. As we pursue legal action, we demand accountability and a renewed commitment to protecting women’s privacy and civil rights.”

“After witnessing a disturbing incident in the women’s dressing room and raising concerns, I’ve faced a relentless storm of attacks and falsehoods,” Julie Jaman said. “Despite my four decades of community involvement, I’m left with no choice but to seek justice through the courts.”

The Center for American Liberty summarizes the lawsuit thusly:

BANNED FOR LIFE.

When Julie Jaman saw a man in a women’s swimsuit assisting young girls undress in a pool locker room, she was startled and shocked. She believed she may be witnessing a crime in progress.

 

The Port Townsend City Pool — operated by the local YMCA — has a policy that allows men who identify as women to use women’s private spaces like bathrooms and locker rooms. But the YMCA didn’t publicize the policy or warn the women using these facilities that they could be sharing the space with a man at any moment.

 

In the locker room, Julie was understandably concerned by the situation playing out in front of her. She confronted the man and asked him to leave. Within moments of this conversation, YMCA staff began berating Julie for her comments.

 

Instead of addressing Julie’s concerns, the YMCA immediately subjected Julie to a series of escalating punishments:

 

• YMCA staff told Julie that her objection to having a man in the woman’s locker room was “discriminatory.”
• Because Julie’s comment was “discriminatory,” the YMCA banned her for life from all facilities run by that YMCA branch.
• When Julie objected and attempted to explain her side of the story, YMCA staff called the police on her.

 

What began as an attempt to protect two young girls from exposing themselves in front of an adult male ended with a call to the police—to investigate Julie, not the man in the locker room.

 

Sadly, this type of injustice has become a common occurrence in today’s society. It’s a direct result of prioritizing adherence to radical gender ideology over protecting our fundamental rights.

 

Object to a man in the women’s locker room? Banned. Draw attention to the dangers of the bathroom policy? Silenced.

 

That’s why Julie is fighting back.

 

The Center for American Liberty filed a lawsuit against the YMCA and the City of Port Townsend on Julie’s behalf, asking the court to force the City to lift Julie’s lifetime ban. The City of Port Townsend and the YMCA punished Julie because of the content of her speech—because she spoke out after seeing a man in the women’s locker room. Julie deserves justice for the violation of her First Amendment rights and the emotional distress she’s experienced because of this ordeal.

And in her own words…

The written record shows that City Manager John Mauro was not the least bit interested in hearing Jaman’s version of the episode. (See lawsuit Exhibits 8-29 here.) The rush to judgment was immediate and uncompromising, following the arc of ideological narratives one now expects to hear from city hall. Ends justifying the means, City Manager Mauro and advisors swiftly determined that the City was obligated to follow Washington State law alone, forsaking concerns — if they were considered at all — for pragmatic child protection and the U.S. Constitution. It is there — on the constitutional grounds — that this battle will be waged.

The introduction of the lawsuit follows:

1. The City of Port Townsend, Washington (the “City” or “Port Townsend”) has an indoor community swimming facility called the Mountain View Pool (the “Pool”). As with most community pools, residents of this small city use the Pool to recreate and connect with others. But at this pool, patrons must forfeit their First Amendment rights before being allowed in. This is unconstitutional.

2. The City outsources day-to-day management of the Pool to the Olympic Peninsula YMCA (the “YMCA”), a local affiliate of the Young Men’s Christian Association. Although the YMCA is a private non-profit corporation, its operation of the Pool is state action subject to constitutional restrictions. Not only is the Pool government property, but the City remains intimately involved in its management, maintenance, and repair, partnering with the YMCA in that endeavor. In the YMCA’s operation of the Pool and the public messaging associated with the events at issue here, the YMCA and the City have failed to uphold their constitutional obligations as government actors.

3. Plaintiff Julie Jaman is an eighty-two-year-old resident of Port Townsend, where she has lived for forty-eight years. For much of her life, she has served as an advocate for women survivors of sexual assault and domestic abuse. Until recently, she regularly used the Pool for recreational and therapeutic purposes.

4. That changed on July 26, 2022, when the YMCA summarily and permanently banned Jaman from the Pool. That day, Jaman was showering in the women’s locker room after swimming. While in the shower, she heard a male voice coming from inside the locker room. She opened the shower curtain and saw a male in a female swimsuit—an individual who was later identified to her as “Clementine Adams”—with two young girls as they were preparing to use the toilet. Adams was helping one of the young girls remove her bathing suit.

5. Jaman thought she was witnessing a crime in progress, so she spoke up as best she could under the circumstances: she told Adams to leave the women’s locker room. A YMCA staff person immediately entered the locker room, and Jaman asked the staff member to remove Adams. Instead, the staff person berated Jaman for her “discriminatory” statements toward Adams and told Jaman on the spot that she was “banned for life” from the Pool for objecting to Adams’s presence in the locker room.

6. As Jaman later learned, Adams was a YMCA camp counselor and identified as female. Unbeknownst to Jaman, (1) the YMCA’s policy was to allow patrons to use the locker room consistent with their gender identity irrespective of their sex, (2) Adams had the YMCA’s permission to be in the women’s locker room, and (3) Adams had the YMCA’s permission to assist the young girls in using the toilet.

7. Since the incident, Port Townsend officials and YMCA employees have conspired together to engage in a high-profile public relations campaign designed to justify Jaman’s lifetime ban, to smear her, and to make her appear to be bigoted and a serial harasser of transgender individuals. None of this is true. Jaman supports keeping women’s private spaces reserved for women, but she does not harbor hate towards anyone based on their gender identity, nor has she ever harassed anyone at the Pool or elsewhere. Yet that is exactly what Port Townsend and the YMCA have led the public to believe through their false and misleading statements. Like the YMCA’s operation of the Pool, this smear campaign was unconstitutional state action.

8. To this day, almost two years after the incident, Port Townsend and the YMCA have maintained the lifetime ban against Jaman from using the Pool.

9. Defendants’ actions against Jaman were both unlawful and shameful. When an eighty-year-old woman reasonably believes she is witnessing a crime being committed against young girls in a women’s locker room, the government’s reaction should be to gather all of the facts and learn what happened, not immediately take sides in an ideologically charged political debate. Defendants may not summarily punish Jaman for her speech in reaction to what she saw, nor may they defame her for speaking out.

10. Jaman simply wants to return to the Pool she has used for almost forty years and to be compensated for the deprivation of her rights. The Pool is particularly important to her now that, due to her arthritis, swimming is the best form of exercise available to her. In addition, she wants to continue recreating with her friends and fellow Pool patrons. She wants everyone at the Pool to feel safe and secure in sensitive places. And above all else, she wants her life back.

11. Defendants’ lifetime ban against Jaman, their smear campaign against her, and their refusal to allow her to return to the Pool represents the sad reality of constitutional rights and public safety in Port Townsend. Jaman brings this action to remedy this harm.

 

City Officials’ Presumption of Guilt

Jaman’s version of the initial exchange between her and Adams has been consistent from day one. She said no more than ten words to the young man in a woman’s swimsuit in the ladies’ locker room. Evidently, Rowen DeLuna — the staff person who berated Jaman for her “discriminatory” statements toward Adams, told Jaman on the spot that she was “banned for life” from the pool, and is named as a defendant in the lawsuit — and/or someone else from the Y felt the need to embellish. Jaman was accused of saying things that anyone who knows her would instantly see as inconsistent with her integrity and nature.

Reporting to his “Leadership Team” the day after the August 1st city council meeting where Jaman shared her experience, and many supporters expressed their concern with how the situation had been handled thus far, Mauro sent out a “note to staff” to set the stage — here’s the official story, we should have no deviations from it, beware of misinformation coming from ’the other side.’

 

 

So that’s that. No questions asked — of Jaman, that is. Here is what the Y said you said. Did you, in fact, say these things? No, that question was never posed to the accused. As kangaroo court a hearing of an event as could possibly be held.

It’s all too familiar in government today, when charges of misinformation are commonly cast by the true misinformers.

The staff member, Adams, did not “endure a barrage of unfair, disrespectful and offensive attacks.”

Jaman had no idea she might encounter a male in the locker room, nor that she was expected to use ‘family changing rooms’ if she wished to avoid exposing herself to such males — because the Y did not make this clear to patrons. Not through signage, announcements in the city newsletter, nor discussion with incoming pool users. Purposely? Perhaps, to avoid the controversy. Or maybe they hadn’t gone all in on the changes themselves?

Mauro continues the sermon with a third point, that being Port Townsend’s designation as a sanctuary city, “welcoming of all residents and our diversity.” He proceeds to launch sideways accusations at Jaman, suggesting she was “intolerant, unkind… fueled by fear, anger and hate.” Again, anyone who knows Julie Jaman knows these inflammatory charges are patently absurd.

 

Throwing Good Money After Bad

Mauro and his advisors spent $3,000 of our city’s precious treasure to hire a PR firm to help manage the debacle. They produced a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) bulletin that was posted on the city’s website. It, too, contained falsehoods, including repetition of the claim that Jaman had “made discriminatory and derogatory comments toward” Adams.

Their FAQ also stated that Jaman had engaged in a “documented previous pattern of disrespectful behavior” at the Pool, a defamatory allegation that was news to Jaman. No such “pattern” had ever been discussed with her by Y staff. No documentation was forthcoming when requested. It does not exist. At least it did not exist before ’the incident.’

Have these actors — obviously so willing to make false claims and character assassinations — been foolish enough to do a little creative backstory-building to cover their rear ends in what has turned out to be quite a serious matter? Let us hope not.

Councillor Libby Wennstrom and Mayor David Faber get (dis)honorable mention in the suit, both for their social media posts suggesting that Jaman was “bigoted and intolerant of transgender-identifying individuals,” with Wennstrom going further by insinuating that Jaman’s presence at the Y had potential to undermine the safety of trans-identifying people.

For greater details, read the lawsuit and the appended exhibits (1, 2). Defendants have 21 days to respond once the Court executes the summonses and the defendants are served with same.  We will report updates in the comment section as we hear of them.

The defendants in this case — and their partisans, too — would do well to pay heed to one of our more timeless proverbs, which has never had more relevance: Pride comes before a fall.

 

————————————-

Feature image used with permission, Praetorian Public Relations, Walnut Creek, CA