A New Britain man is pursuing a $2 million claim against a Wethersfield yoga studio, alleging the owner discriminated against him for being male when she asked him not to return after months of making the owner, instructors, and attendees uncomfortable with his insistence on attending classes designed for women, including prenatal yoga and yoga classes for pelvic floor strengthening.

The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO), which adjudicates discrimination claims, found there was reason to believe Mark Chylinski was discriminated against on March 8, 2024, when Soulshine Yoga owner Brianna Bruno emailed him asking him not to return to her yoga studio after he attended a “Divine Feminine Breathwork workshop,” in celebration of International Women’s Day. 

According to Bruno’s testimony in the CHRO draft decision, the “class was focused on female anatomy and femininity, including pelvic floor exercises.”

In his affidavit, Chylinski described himself as a male in his 50s and indicated he believed he was discriminated against based on those factors; “I believe that my civil rights were violated based on my gender and age, when I was denied equal service.” It should be noted that Chylinski does not identify as a trans person and, according to Bruno, never presented himself as such.

Chylinski’s behavior had been causing issues and concerns since he started attending the yoga studio in January 2024, including multiple comments to attendees and registering for a self-love club workshop in which the description stated the class was intended for “women and those identifying as women.” He did not attend that class after Bruno emailed him, asking him not to, and refunded his class fee.

During an Ayurvedic Workshop, which was open to everyone, Chylinski pressed the instructor on attending prenatal yoga classes “to learn about the vagina,” according to Bruno’s testimony. The instructor, who was interviewed by CHRO, confirmed that she observed him making attendees “uncomfortable and unsettled.”

According to her response to the CHRO’s draft decision, the instructor had been trying for months to gently curb Chylinski’s behavior, whom she believes to have autism. Bruno had emailed Chylinski prior to the Divine Breathwork class, asking him not to attend, but, according to CHRO’s decision, he had already left his home to attend the class and therefore didn’t receive it. While Chylinski did not create a disturbance during the Divine Breathwork class, Bruno decided his overall presence was causing too many issues. 

Some of her yoga instructors had experienced previous run-ins with Chylinski at other fitness studios, “where Complainant’s inappropriate behavior was addressed by management,” according to Bruno’s response. One yoga instructor would refuse to teach a class he attended due to prior issues with Chylinski; another instructor expressed concern due to his behaviors at another studio. Brianna decided it was time to cut Chylinski off from her studio.

“Due to further concern for her small business, the safety of instructors, and Respondent’s reputation with clients, Brianna determined the Complainant’s behavior was too disruptive and harmful to continue attending classes and workshops,” Bruno wrote.

Bruno emailed Chylinski, writing in part: “Per my last email, & in regards to multiple conversations about intended audience & studio policy, I am kindly asking you to not return to any classes and offerings going forward at soulshine. We work hard to create a safe space for all, being woman owned and staffed by all woman [sic] it’s incredibly important that all our women students trust us to deliver this experience in curating workshops for woman [sic] only. The workshop this evening was very clearly a woman’s event as the name of it was ‘divine feminine breath work,” according to the CHRO draft decision.

Following the email, Bruno says Chylinski began harassing her, trying to file police reports to have her arrested, calling town offices and the Wethersfield Chamber of Commerce, threatening to make Bruno “sorry.” She states she began receiving harassing phone calls from an unknown number in which the caller would just breathe into the phone. Bruno finally had him trespassed by police so he would be legally barred from the studio. She says she didn’t take out a restraining order because she didn’t want him knowing her home address.

“I’m a single mom I have a three-year old I don’t need this man knowing where I live given the level of obsession he has with me and my business,” Bruno said in an interview.

However, Bruno made a mistake when she sent the email: although she says she was trying to be gentle with Chylinski to avoid conflict, in the email she indicated it was a women’s class, leading to CHRO’s determination that she had discriminated against Chylinski based on his gender. Had she merely said she didn’t want him to come to her classes anymore, she likely could have avoided that finding.

“I don’t have an HR department,” Bruno said. “The state doesn’t provide any services to any business owner saying you can’t use this wording you’re gonna open yourself up for a lawsuit. I basically said, like, you’re not respecting the studios policies and boundaries.”

Bruno has been dealing with the fallout ever since Chylinski filed his claim with CHRO in December 2024. It has included extensive mailings in response to numerous filings made by Chylinski – often, she says, “gibberish” hand-written on lined paper – and she states she missed out on an opportunity to expand her business because she has no idea how this will all play out. 

“He said he wanted $2,000,000 he wouldn’t settle for anything less,” Bruno said. “This has taken a toll on my mental health. I was unable to expand my business. I had an opportunity to grow and like triple my space and had a fantastic opportunity to expand and this has prevented me from doing anything because it’s all up in the air.”

Because the CHRO determined they believe Bruno violated Connecticut’s anti-discrimination laws, the case will move to a trial, known as a public hearing, in January 2027. During that hearing, CHRO officials will represent the State of Connecticut, alleging Connecticut’s laws were broken. Although the state agency does not legally represent Chylinski, their argument will essentially back up Chylinski’s claims.

CHRO’s determination is based on reasonable cause standards, essentially determining there is enough evidence to move forward with a trial before a hearing officer. The hearing officer decides a case based on the more rigorous civil court standard of a preponderance of evidence and will make the ultimate determination, including any monetary damages. 

While the complainant gets the advantage of having taxpayers cover the cost for CHRO to determine that discrimination has taken place and then throw the weight of the state behind their allegations in a public hearing, business owners are left to pay for their own defense. 

A CHRO official will try to mediate between the two parties before it gets to a public hearing, and often businesses will just pay a settlement to make the claim go away, determining it will cost more to pay for attorneys, and potentially a finding against them by the public hearing officer.

Bruno says she doesn’t have that option because she can’t afford a settlement and certainly can’t afford an attorney. To pursue a case in Connecticut Superior Court, a complainant alleging discrimination must first go through CHRO’s process or be granted release of jurisdiction. So even if she wins her case before the hearing officer, she could still face a civil suit.

Of the 2,330 cases resolved by CHRO during fiscal year 2024/2025, 794 were withdrawn after reaching a settlement, 533 received a release of jurisdiction, and 35 went to public hearing, according to CHRO’s annual report.

“I don’t have the money to pay for an attorney for this, none of this is covered by insurance,” Bruno said. “I am not paying $10,000 out of pocket to fight this man off. I’m just not. That’s my mortgage or my rent. I don’t have the money to cover that right now.”

Chylinski is also no stranger to the CHRO process or pro se lawsuits alleging discrimination. 

After going through the CHRO process, he previously filed a federal lawsuit against New Britain business Martin Rosol’s Inc “and a number of individual defendants for alleged employment discrimination and retaliation” in 2008 after he was terminated from the business. The lawsuit was dismissed.

Chylinski filed another federal lawsuit alleging employment discrimination by Bank of America, which was dismissed in 2010. Most recently in 2024, he filed a lawsuit against fitness studio SolidCore in small claims court — purportedly over being asked to leave the business — which was dismissed when he didn’t follow through with his filings.

Although Bruno says she believes in CHRO’s mission, she also believes the state agency can be used by individuals to simply extract money from businesses and landlords. A previous report by Inside Investigator found one individual had filed nine claims against landlords with CHRO over four years resulting in nearly $20,000 in settlements. When one landlord refused to settle, they were ordered to pay $65,000 for emotional damage and loss of housing opportunities.

“I truly do believe at the very base of what CHRO is doing is meant to help people, but what they’re doing in the meantime and in between is destroying small business, and it will continue to just destroy small business unless we get some type of reform within their organization,” Bruno said. “Unfortunately, people are figuring out they can use this system to get money out of business owners.”

“It’s just not normal. This case should have never gone on this far,” Bruno said.

CHRO V. EDGE FITNESS

In his draft decision, CHRO Representative Oliver Morris cites a 2022 Connecticut Supreme Court decision that determined it was discriminatory for gyms and fitness centers to reserve spaces for a single sex. Since a gym was a place of public accommodation, everyone must have equal accommodation, so there can be no workout areas specifically for women. Bathrooms and locker rooms, however, have a statutory carve out.

However, Bruno claims this court finding does not apply to her studio. Indeed, the studio is simply a small 750-foot open floor; there is no place in which Bruno could create a separate place to restrict individuals based on gender. She also indicates that roughly 20 percent of her attendees are male.

Bruno states that while all are welcome to attend her yoga classes, some of the classes are designed specifically for female anatomies — like classes intended to help women through pregnancy or menopause. It isn’t meant to be exclusionary, she says, but just specific to women’s bodies and the phases of life they go through.

“I think it’s it’s okay to have same sex programming that is specific to female anatomy,” Bruno said. “Why can’t we have a class? I’m not asking for the whole place. It’s one hour, you know, and create a space to be able to support women that have been through a shared experience.”

Bruno says this matter has nothing to do with the trans community, which she welcomes to her studio, but rather a “loophole” in Connecticut’s laws that doesn’t allow for gender specific programming during a set time at a place that is otherwise open to everyone.

“I’m not trying to exclude anybody, it’s just being able to safely offer a space for pregnant people, for pelvic floor dysfunction, for things like breath work that involves female anatomy,” Bruno said. “I would never want to not make a safe place for a trans person, they’re welcome here at all times.”

According to the CHRO draft decision, the only exceptions to Connecticut’s “proscription against sex discrimination were those that were specifically spelled out within statute.” State statute only contains exceptions for sleeping quarters, bathrooms, and locker rooms.

Massachusetts, on the other hand, includes a single-sex carve out for “bona-fide fitness centers,” following a 1997 court case in which a man filed a lawsuit against a women’s-only fitness center. The court ruled not allowing men constituted discrimination. Massachusetts lawmakers then revised the state’s discrimination laws to allow for single-sex fitness centers; however, the statute says nothing about single-sex programming.

The Massachusetts law was updated in 2016 to require “places of public accommodation that lawfully segregate or separate access based on a person’s sex to ‘grant all persons admission to, and the full enjoyment of, such places of public accommodation, consistent with the person’s gender identity,’” according to the Boston Bar Association.

Bruno says all she is seeking under Connecticut law is to be allowed to offer single-sex programming within a space that is open to everyone. To that end, Bruno reached out to her local state representatives and senator with her story, and a bill came before the Judiciary Committee this session for which she offered testimony.

However, the bill language didn’t reflect what she hoped; it went too far, and ultimately led to the language that would remedy her situation being stripped out.

“THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES”

Under the language of SB 399, “separate areas for engaging in exercise within a health club or gym based on sex” would no longer be deemed discriminatory, essentially reversing CHRO v. Edge Fitness. 

It was a stripped-down version of the original working draft of the bill, which was more in line with Massachusetts law, albeit, without the carve out for trans-identifying individuals. Under the working draft, health clubs would be allowed to “restrict access to such health club for the exclusive use of persons of the same sex.” 

According to her written testimony, Bruno wanted the language even narrower, proposing “to establish that a health club is not engaged in a discriminatory practice when restricting access to certain services or programming to persons of the same sex.” The difference was between offering separate spaces — as outlined in the proposed bill — opposed to offering separate services or programming, as Bruno envisioned.

“This bill does not expand discrimination; rather, it provides clarity and protection for narrowly tailored, anatomically specific programming,” Bruno wrote. “Without such clarity, small business owners face legal ambiguity when attempting to offer services that are widely recognized as beneficial and necessary for women’s health.”

Written testimony submitted to the Judiciary Committee was largely in support. However, the bill’s language allowing sex-segregated areas raised alarm among some organizations, including the CHRO, all of whom warned it would be a step backwards and could adversely affect members of the trans community and women.

CHRO Executive Director Tanya Hughes testified she understood the intention behind the bill, but that “the codification of this provision essentially endorses the idea that customer preference is permissible, even when based on a protected class.” She warned that the language could be used to exclude women through the creation of male-only spaces.

Instead, Hughes said Connecticut’s laws against harassment were sufficient to ensure women are comfortable, including removing an individual from an establishment if they are harassing people. While Chylinski’s behavior in the yoga studio made attendees and instructors uncomfortable, it may not have risen to the level of harassment, which, in Connecticut statute, generally means to intentionally annoy, terrorize, or alarm another individual. 

The proposal was also opposed by the Connecticut chapter of the ACLU, who warned the bill could adversely affect transgender people and women by creating exclusionary spaces and concurred that the solution to the problem is to stop men from harassing women.

“This legislature should not create an exception to public accommodations laws forbidding sex discrimination for certain groups of people working out at gyms,” Jess Zaccagnino wrote in testimony. “Instead of undermining our state’s anti-discrimination laws by creating a new carve-out, the legislature should require gyms to stop patrons from harassing women.”

Quinn Meehan, a non-binary person testifying on behalf of the Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut, said sex segregated spaces would force individuals “to choose between two gendered areas that do not suit us, and, depending on how others perceive us, may face exclusion or harassment.”

Despite the lack of nuance in the language, Brianna testified in person before the Judiciary Committee in support of the bill, along with changes to it, and lawmakers appeared interested in reaching some kind of middle ground. Sen. Matt Lesser, D-Middletown, said he was “enormously sympathetic” to Brianna’s situation and hoped they could come to some kind of resolution. However, he acknowledged that adjusting Connecticut’s discrimination laws can be a “minefield.”

“The concern I see in some of the testimony we received in the committee is from folks who are concerned this bill goes further than what you’re asking to do, to open up a Pandora’s Box and allow all kinds of sex discrimination,” Lesser said during the committee hearing. “I’d like to work with you to figure out how we can address this issue and support you in a way that is narrowly tailored as possible because of all the other folks who are… this is a minefield. The law of unintended consequences is a really serious thing with discrimination laws.”

“It’s kind of a messed-up story, and I’m very sympathetic,” Lesser said.

Similarly, Rep. Cara Pavalock-D’Amato, R-Bristol, indicated she was willing to work on the bill language to more carefully reflect what Bruno sought, namely the ability to allow health clubs and wellness centers to offer services to people of the same sex, and being able to use  “some type of discretion,” in offering their services.

“I think the wording just really needs to be considered and what we’re able to do as a wellness space offering classes that are specific to women and different programming,” Bruno said during testimony. “That we’d be able to offer those without having any ramification to our business.”

NOT GOING TO STOP

“It is very unfortunate that the situation with Soulshine Yoga has exposed a loophole in Connecticut statutes that does not protect women in safe spaces when it comes to fitness and wellness,” Rep. Kerry Wood, D-Rocky Hill, said when reached for comment. “The legislature can fix this loophole by aligning our statutes with those of Massachusetts. This would make sure Brianna and other business owners can offer classes like prenatal yoga and domestic violence support.”

Even with the support of some lawmakers, Bruno must now wait for her public hearing in January of next year, when she will face not only Chylinski and his demand for $2 million, but also the CHRO acting on behalf of the state, alleging she has broken Connecticut’s laws and is therefore subject to penalty.

“They [CHRO] have never once told this man that [$2 million] is exorbitant based on the situation. He’s paid my business no more than $90.00 total,” Bruno said. “I asked him to not return based on a number of things, one of which being the fact that he didn’t respect our offerings, and because of the way the laws are written, the state is siding with him and not a business owner that has been in business for five years that has male clients all the time and has never had any other issues.”

Bruno said during testimony and in an interview that yoga classes are offered to help attendees deal with trauma like rape, and that a male presence in the room could certainly cause discomfort and unease. At this point, because of the way the law is written, she can’t offer a class like that only to women.

“Women that have been through significant amount of trauma, they are being told by their doctors that yoga is a great tool for PTSD,” Bruno said. “I should be able to offer those classes and not have to worry about someone coming in to just ruin the safe space and do it intentionally, because that’s kind of what this is, that there’s a loophole that it can be done intentionally.”

With this case hanging over her head and her business, Bruno is left in a waiting game, trying to figure out if and when she will need to take the next step of hiring an attorney. As a small business owner, she is already financially burdened. In the meantime, she can do little to grow or expand her yoga practice. 

Bruno, however, says she’s not giving up on pursuing statutory changes that will prevent something like this from happening again in the future.

“I’m not going to stop going back for them to change it. I want it to be put through the right way, and I want to be able to fight for it,” Bruno said. “I’m not the only business owner this is happening to right now.”

Multiple phone calls to Chylinski seeking comment were not returned. The CHRO cannot comment on pending cases.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.