Fitness Model Kicked out of Qantas Lounge, Claims Gender Discrimination

Fitness model and former WWE wrestler Natalie Eva Marie has accused Qantas of gender discrimination after she was kicked out of a Qantas lounge for allegedly violating their dress code.

In a society where people will jump to social media to levy accusations at corporations for the smallest of slights, I’m siding with Qantas on this one, and I’m calling foul at her claim that the airline is doing anything unsightly.

Check out what happened, and you decide. Was Qantas discriminating against a woman, or was the woman out of line and out of policy?

What Happened?

A little over a week ago, Eva Marie headed to the Qantas Melbourne Lounge decked out in full head-to-toe neon orange workout gear. When she was asked to leave the lounge, citing the company’s dress code, she decided that she had enough.

She left the lounge and made sure to pose in front of the lounge entrance in full Ryderwear gear. Ryderwear is a bodybuilding and fitness line of clothing (also known as active wear).

To prove her point, she later tweeted that this was obvious gender discrimination because her husband, who was also in active wear, was not kicked out of the lounge.

Nicely done, leaving your husband behind while you are kicked out. If I did that, Ben would give me an immediate divorce whereas she decided to attack Qantas on social media in an attempt to gain more followers.

The Policy

Qantas has a very clear dress code for their lounges, one which miss Eva Marie could have found by doing a simple google search before entering the lounge.

According to Qantas:

These guidelines are intended to create an environment everyone can enjoy, so please be mindful of your choice of clothing and footwear when visiting Qantas Clubs and Business Lounges in Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney.

As you can see in the lounge entry requirements, head-to-toe gym wear is strictly prohibited, and there is no denying that she was wearing full active wear. 

Her husband was in a t-shirt and shorts, from the same company, but it wasn’t a literal head-to-toe outfit. We’ve seen dozens and hundreds of people dressed in t-shirts and shorts, men and women alike, who have been admitted to the lounge. 


According to Mrs Eva Marie, “This is NOT a dresscode issue, I support a businesses right to enforce equitable dresscode standards. However, My husband was allowed in no problem wearing this. While I was kicked out wearing this. My issue is that standards should be equitably enforced.”

She also erroneously claims that since her business IS an active lifestyle and fitness, that she should be allowed to enter the business class lounge in her active fitness wear.

One of the commenters on her twitter feed retorted with something that I find a valid argument. Fitness may be her business, but if a bikini model entered the lounge, could she justify entering a bikini? Just because it’s a business lounge doesn’t mean your business grants you entry.

What do you think? Was her dress against the Qantas dress code? Was she right to be denied entry? Should her husband also have been denied entry?


Author: Jon Nickel-D'Andrea

Share This Post On


  1. I am siding with Marie on this one.

    I am not saying she shouldn’t be kicked out for violating policy, I am saying her husband should be kicked out too.

    Claiming he “didn’t violate policy b/c he didn’t literally have a long gym pant” is gender discrimination IMHO, women’s gym wear tends to be head to toe leggins, men’s are not. That doesn’t mean he didn’t have a full gym wear.

    Post a Reply
    • Do you not think that he was simply wearing shorts and a T-shirt? There is no denying that she is literally head to toe in work out clothing.

      Post a Reply
  2. She clearly broke the rules as did her husband. I actually think the rules are a bit much since athleisure wear has become so common but it is the rules. Maybe next time she can wear some Uggs to top off the outfit and her husband can wear flip flops (since those are such awesome airport walking shoes). The good news is they will gain attention and followers on social media so it will add to her net worth which is the goal in life these days I guess.

    Post a Reply
    • Athleisure? Is that a thing?

      Post a Reply
      • Yes, Athleisure is a thing! It’s HUGE industry. I think this entire discussion will force Quantas to review their policy. it’s a tough call – I actually think she is better dressed then he is, but I also agree that dress code was enforced properly. Time for an update Quantas – either way – but make it clear. Welcome to 2020.

        Post a Reply
  3. Well, if you are going to follow this by the letter, it IS written in their dress code policy and her husband’s attire is not prohibited. I can see why she possibly didn’t check the dress code, because what she has on does have her completely covered, no unnecessary cleavage being shown etc. but, I do not think there was anything gender discriminate about this. It’s just the way their code is written and she happened to have been dressed, head-to-toe in workout gear.
    If her husband had been dressed as he was, but barefoot, they would not have let him in. So I guess you just need to make sure you check the policies before you fly.

    Post a Reply
  4. Can you post some of her pics in a bikini?

    Post a Reply
    • You can do that searching yourself, Debit 😉

      Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Join the List

Receive the latest news daily.

You have Successfully Subscribed!