by Sondra Wilson.  [email protected].  Posted 8/15/2024.

     As a transgender woman, I am no stranger to discrimination. I’ve experienced it in many forms over the years, from derogatory comments made by passers-by to bosses suddenly firing me after they learned I was transgender, then telling me they “felt uncomfortable”. In fact, over the years, phrase “felt uncomfortable” became a telltale sign that their “discomfort” was directly related to me being transgender. Another instance was at a job interview I attended, arranged by the owner of a business in Northern California. The manager walking into the interview room, looked at me, told me to come with him, then led me to the rear alley because he “wasn’t going to waste our time” with an interview. He said he had seen me around town and “felt uncomfortable” around me. When I was kicked off the property and given a vague explanation by Reliable Street in Ames, Iowa, I was told the same words – someone complained that I made them feel “uncomfortable”. No specific actions I performed were told to me (nor do I believe there were any). With regard to the Reliable Street case, I had hard evidence I was discriminated against and that the respondents lied to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission after I field a complaint. I showed several pieces of evidence to the Commission, but they closed the case regardless. When the Commission turned me away, I took other steps, detailed below. The State’s harmful response and unwillingness to hold anyone accountable, detailed below, gave rise to a large part of my lawsuit against the State. You can read the excerpt from my Amended Petition re: Fraudulent misrepresentation by the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, State doesn’t hold businesses accountable for lying to the Commission, or read the summary below.

     One last thing before we begin, on May 17, 2024 – approximately two months after I filed suit – the State of Iowa’s Legislative and Executive branches shut down the Iowa Civil Rights Commission! Instead of coming to the table with regard to the five desperately-needed reforms I requested within my lawsuit, the State shut down the one agency where minorities can go to file discrimination complaints! Where will people of color, people with disabilities, women who experience sex-based discrimination, LGBT+ people, and other vulnerable populations when they experience outright prejudice and the harms that are done to your life that come with it? My lawsuit seeks to halt the State’s plan to shut down the commission, and instead seeks 5 key reforms. Read more.

 

The State of Iowa’s response to my discrimination complaint led to part three of my suit against the State:

• It began with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission choosing not to screen in and investigate my complaint after I showed hard evidence that the Respondents submitted numerous false statements alongside a falsified document to the Commission in order to convince them not to investigate (and to retaliate against me for coming forward). If an officer were interrogating a suspect, and the suspect provided false statements to the officer the officer knows to be false, in order to attempt to deceive the officer and convince them not to investigate, such false statements would provide probable cause to the officer to investigate further. The Commission’s website states, “If the collected information indicates a reasonable possibility of a probable cause determination, the complaint will be ‘screened in,‘” however, in practice, this doesn’t appear to be the case, as became blatantly evident after I filed with the Office of the Ombudsman (described below). Another issue I discovered with regard to to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, is that, although volunteers for non-profits can be protected against discrimination in some cases, the Iowa Civil Rights Act does not explicitly protect volunteers from discrimination. The State’s Legislature neglected to add such protection, leaving minorities able to be harmed and without recourse. The State’s lack of concern with regard to businesses submitting false statements about their victims effectively enables businesses to retaliate against victims for coming forward via simply lying about their victim to the commission. Note that in my lawsuit I have requested the court to compel the State to:
  • Add “protection against discrimination for volunteers” to the Iowa Civil Rights Act;
  • Make it a crime to lie or attempt to deceive the Commission.
  • Require the Iowa Civil Rights Commission to provide victims with a copy of the case file for use in appealing their cases with the Commission, and for use in finding an attorney for when the Commission chooses not to investigate.
• THIS SECTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION. Check back soon!  8/16/24.

 

 

Additional details about the Iowa Civil Rights Commission’s response, followed by (in)actions by other agencies:

    Although the Commission’s website states, “During the screening stage, the Commission draws all “rational, reasonable, and otherwise permissible” inferences in Complainant’s favor, it was apparent that, by reading the Commission’s preliminary evaluation, that they drew all ‘rational, reasonable, and otherwise permissible’ inferences in the Respondents’ favors. Essentially they appeared to have bent over backwards to 

• • The ICRC appeared to bend over backwards in favor of the businesses within the evaluation and determination letter they sent me following my complaint. ICRC did not do as they say on their website, hence my fraudulent misrepresentation: ICRC appears to mislead taxpayers and complainants, and endangers victims of discrimination via not screening in cases wherein a “reasonable possibility of probable cause” is shown.

§ 15 – ICRC withholds crucial information from victims of discrimination which could be used to prove their cases within their appeals to the ICRC, and to prospective attorneys who might otherwise be able to help them with their case

56. When ICRC closed my case, they sent a preliminary case review (ATTACHMENT F

– ICRC’s preliminary case review). The review referenced various pieces of evidence, such as

text messages, which were not shown to me, but instead described vaguely. Their evaluation also

contained hearsay, such as “PRESIDENT states that SONDRA had become obsessed with

EMPLOYEE, to the extent that SONDRA was stalking and harassing her.” (page 3 of

ATTACHMENT F). This statement, for example, gave me no indication whether:

a.) The PRESIDENT lied about my “stalking and harassing” the EMPLOYEE in retaliation for filing the complaint, or

b.) The EMPLOYEE lied to the PRESIDENT and said these things.

57. On September 30, 2022 I requested a copy of the case file so I could view the actual

documents submitted to the ICRC by the Respondents (ATTACHMENT G – requested case file

from ICRC). Ramona Ubaldo wrote back, “Unfortunately unless you request the Right To Sue you

are not entitled to the complete file, meaning, you can only receive what was sent to you or received

from you. If you desire the complete case file you will need to request the RTS. BUT you absolutely do

not want to request the RTS until you speak with an attorney.”

58. The Letter of Right-to-Sue Ramona referenced was written about within ATTACHMENT H

– how to request a Letter of Right-to-sue, which was sent to me by the ICRC at the time they closed my

case. The document states, “You have a right to file a lawsuit within (90) days of the issue date of the

letter of right-to-sue.” Although I required the case file in order to view the hard evidence instead of

hearsay (ATTACHMENT F), I did not order the Letter of Right-to-sue because at the time I did not

possess nearly enough knowledge to figure out how to file a lawsuit within the 90 day limit.

59. ICRC advised me on multiple occasions to “find a private attorney from the State

BAR website”. As shown in line 57, I was told, “[Y]ou absolutely do not want to request the [Letter

of Right-to-sue] until you speak with an attorney.” Attorneys, however, tend to invest in meritorious

cases they believe will win. Multiple attorneys asked me for evidence with regard to my claim.

Although I did possess some hard evidence that the Respondents lied to ICRC in order to convince

ICRC not to investigate, the most crucial pieces of evidence were withheld from me by the ICRC

due to their arbitrary “Letter of Right-to-sue” restriction and 90-day time limit. I would later find out,

after I took ICRC’s advise with regard to trying to find an attorney, that the evidence ICRC

withheld from me included a falsified document wherein at least one of the Respondents (or their

employee) rearranged screenshots of messages between the employee I was falsely accused of

stalking and myself in order to convince the ICRC that the discriminatory action Respondents

took against me was not in fact discriminatory, but rather justified. This was one of several

crucial pieces of evidence I was unable to show the multitude of attorneys I contacted to request

help! I firmly believe that if I would have been given the evidence by the ICRC, I would have

had a much better chance of finding an attorney who was willing to help.

60. After contacting more than 50 attorneys and seeking multiple other avenues to try to

find help, as shown in ATTACHMENT C – legal assistance sought, I began studying the Iowa

Rules of Procedure so that once I requested the Letter of right-to-sue, I would be able to file

myself in case I was unable to find representation. By my count, when you add up the Iowa

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Iowa Rules of Evidence, there are a total of 372 rules in total. I

personally find some of the rules very difficult to read for regular Citizens such as myself

because they are written in a confusing way. Additionally they seem to be scattered in places. Some rules which could apply to the pretrial phase, are tucked further back in the rules instead of

being placed near the beginning. With so many rules, and no downloadable templates for

Petitions or Motions available for download on the state website as far as I could tell, untangling

these rules and figuring out how to actuate them has felt like a crossword puzzle from hell. I have

been studying law for years. I can’t imagine how frustrating and confusing they must appear to

other Iowans who find themselves in a similar situation as myself, unable to afford legal

representation. I am reminded of the quote by Abraham Lincoln from an 1859 speech, “The

people of these United States are the rightful masters of both congresses and courts, not to

over-throw the Constitution, but to over-throw the men who pervert that Constitution.”4 How

can we be the “rightful masters” of the courts when they are made to be so complex and

confusing that you need to hire a professional in order to interpret how to access them?

Later in this lawsuit I will be requesting the court to help remedy this situation in a manner that

will help all Iowans. Meanwhile, here is where I have been organizing the rules into a step-by-

step not only for my own use, but also to make available to other Iowans who might find

themselves in the unfortunate situation of not being able to find legal assistance after having

been very badly hurt, as I have been:

Iowa Rules of Courtroom Procedure simplified:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ZpEnOZYImPQ0mLg0YajiQehfYYndGInY?usp=drive_link

I am still in the process of untangling and studying the rules, and I respectfully request grace

from the court for any procedural errors I might make, that I may kindly have the opportunity to

amend such errors.

§ 16 – ICRC’s harmful, arbitrary process they make victims of discrimination adhere to effectively reduces the limitations period for complainants to two months instead of two years!

61. After the pretrial rules were mostly organized, on August 7, 2023 I requested the

Letter of Right-to-sue.5 The following day I performed a second request for the case file,6 and

on October 11 I finally received it.7 Time limits for most types of civil cases in Iowa range from

two to five years,8 The ICRC’s harmful process, however, effectively left me with less than two

months to file the suit after receiving the evidence. I did have time to contact every attorney I

had previously contacted (ATTACHMENT C) in order to try to find representation again now

that I had rock hard evidence, including the falsified document, especially due to the fact that I

was attending DMACC for the semester, and had to focus on schoolwork. From the time I

received the evidence until the filing deadline, I was effectively left with less than two months

for a limitations period. If ICRC did not have this unnecessary deadline and withholding of

evidence within their procedure, the limitations period normally would have ended on March 31,

2024. Instead I was made to file no later than December 5, 2023. I have studied law for more

than a decade, and I worked diligently to make sure both these suits while also trying to focus on

my schoolwork and preparing to transfer to ISU. I believe it is safe to assume that the courts sees

very few pro se litigants who are able to meet these unfair and strenuous deadlines ICRC

imposes, especially in light of how confusing the Rules of Procedure are to decipher for non-

lawyers. This lawsuit is not just about me. It is not just about transgender Iowans. LGBT+ and

BIPOC, and other vulnerable populations who are supposed to be protected by the Iowa Civil

Rights Act are affected by the inaccessibility of the courts and the unfairness of ICRC’s

obstacle-course like process. I contacted more than 20 news outlets to cover my story. It breaks

my heart to think about how many Iowans who face discrimination find themselves harmed,

devastated, and without help while in such circumstances. I believe it is highly likely we never

hear those stories. Equitable remedies I request at the end of this petition are designed to improve

and strengthen ICRC’s process to make it fair for victims trying to find help. My testimony

herein corroborates a recent study discussed in the following article released last year in the Des

Moines Register, “Iowa should stop tilting the scales in civil rights cases” by Lucas

Grundmeier.9 Although it is an opinion article, it should be clear by reading about my

experience how tilted, in fact, the scales of justice are when it comes to civil rights cases: the

STATE OF IOWA has its thumb firmly pressed down upon one side of the scale in order to

shield businesses from liability for civil rights violations. The STATE OF IOWA substantially

reduces limitations periods for victims of discrimination, thereby diminishing the victim’s due

process rights.

§ 17 – Fall 2022:
ICRC directs victims of discrimination to file with Legal Aid organizations who cannot help with discrimination cases; “the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing”

59. Upon closing my case, ICRC advised me, on multiple occasions, to find a private

attorney from the State Bar website. After calling more than 50 attorneys and law firms across

the state, the least expensive quote I received was “$275/hr., $5000 up front” from Widdison

Law Firm. This, of course, is far, far beyond what I can afford! Remember, I was (and am) still

recovering from years of homelessness caused in large part by STATE OF IOWA employees.10

60. When I brought this to ICRC’s attention on November 2nd, 2022, Intake Specialist

Ramona Ubaldo provided a list of legal aid organizations for low-income persons

(ATTACHMENT M – requested legal aid low-income Iowans). Every organization on the list

they provided me (except University of Iowa Law Clinic11) told me that they “don’t take fee-

generating cases”12 and were not allowed to handle this type of case. The fact that ICRC directs

low-income, vulnerable populations to legal aid organizations who may not help with these types

of cases shows that the STATE OF IOWA has been neglecting Iowa’s most vulnerable

populations. Why is ICRC directing vulnerable populations, who frequently suffer from poverty

more so than other demographics, to go out and find an expensive attorney? The ICRC, more so

than perhaps anybody, should be aware of the poverty and hurdles that members of vulnerable

populations so often unfairly endure. Many people have told me me, with hope in their eyes,

“You might be able to find an attorney to help you pro bono,” or “Some lawyers will work on

contingency,” however based upon my experience this appears to be far less common than many

people believe. Perhaps the more pressing question we should be asking, however, is, “Why does

the ICRC direct victims to seek legal assistance from organizations who may not handle

discrimination cases? It is a case of reckless disregard; Iowa is neglecting its most vulnerable

populations! If the ICRC did not know that the list of organizations they provided me did not

help with these types of cases, then it is a case of “the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand

is doing”.

61. The average Iowan earns $23.22/hr.,13 while the average rate for a civil litigation

lawyer in Iowa is $238/hr..14 Attorneys typically charge thousands of dollars for a retainer –

something impoverished Iowans don’t often have on hand (I certainly don’t!). In fact, 92% of

low-income Citizens cannot find/afford legal assistance for civil matters!15 Now let’s take into

account the fact that the ICRC typically deals with vulnerable populations whom are protected

by the Iowa Civil Rights Act. These demographics often face increased rates of poverty directly

related to additional obstacles and discrimination we more frequently endure. The percentage

must be higher than 92%. When ICRC turns victims away and doesn’t investigate cases even

when it is shown that the Respondents lied to them, ICRC turns the victim away and sends them

up Shit’s Creek with a turd for a paddle!

§ 18 – Fall 2022:
Attempted to file a complaint with Ames PD, Story County Attorney’s Office,
Attorney General’s Office, and Office of the Ombudsman; I was denied “equal protection of the laws” by Story County Attorney, and discovered hard evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation by the ICRC

62. Prior to requesting the Letter of Right-to-sue, I contacted Ames Police and the Story

County Attorney’s Office in order to file a complaint against the Respondents for fraudulently

submitting false information to a government agency.

(i) I attempted to file a complaint against the Respondents with the Ames Police Department. Although unsure of the charges, it was reasonable to assume that “knowingly submitting false information” to a government agency would be a crime. Supervising Officer Schieffer would not allow me to file a complaint. He told me that he was unsure if Ames PD had jurisdiction over statements submitted to the ICRC. He urged me to call ICRC and ask who has jurisdiction over statements submitted to them.

(ii) I was initially told by the Receptionist at ICRC that “no one” has jurisdiction over statements submitted to them. After thinking about the matter further, she told me I could file with the Attorney General’s Office.

(iii) On Oct. 25, 2022 I filed with the Attorney General’s Office via the Crime Victim Services Application.¹⁶ Although it did not appear to be an ideal place to file, the Attorney General’s Office is the only place I had been recommended to file, and I did not see anywhere else on their website wherein I could file. “Victim services”, however, did make sense, because I was victim of a crime which had not been prosecuted. I figured the AG would at least point me in the right direction. In response to my application, Investigator Al Perales advised me to file with the AG’s fraud department instead of Victim Services. Personnel in the fraud department informed me, however, they do not investigate “this type of fraud”. They mainly only investigate identity theft cases.

(iv) On October 28, 2022 I attempted to file a complaint with the Story County Attorney’s Office. The Receptionist told me that it is “not illegal to submit false statements to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission”, and that they would not be taking action.

(v) After additional research, I discovered that the Respondents did in fact violate Iowa Code §714.8(4), “[A]ny person who makes any entry in… any public records… knowing the same to be false.” is guilty of fraud. Records generated by the Iowa Civil Rights Commission are “public records” according to Section 22.1).¹⁷ I emailed Officer Schieffer, Ames PD, with regard to this, again requesting to file a complaint. After forwarding my email to the Story County Attorney’s Office, he told me that the case was not within Story County’s jurisdiction, and that I needed to file in Polk County. I then called the Des Moines Police Department. Officer Niman informed me that if it was in their jurisdiction, then I should still file the complaint with Ames PD and they will then transfer the complaint to Polk County. Officer Niman sounded perturbed, telling me, “They know this. I don’t know why they told you to file with us.” I then emailed Officer Schieffer again. He responded, “The Story County Attorney’s Office advised that the case was not within our jurisdiction. Additionally, when they looked over the information that you provided in the email, they advised that they not prosecute the case even if it was in our jurisdiction.” It appears to me that either:

 

• The Ames Police Department and Story County Attorney’s Office are guilty of a form of official misconduct called nonfeasance (not doing their job). In this case, as a victim of criminal fraud, I was not provided “equal protection of the laws” as guaranteed by the 14^th Amendment! As a victim of the crime, I was therefore not able to recover restitution. The Ames Police Department ought to have, at the very least, allowed me to file a complaint so I could comply with the Exhaustion-of-Remedies Doctrine prior to filing suit. The Story County Attorney and Ames Police appear to have violated the Iowa Civil Rights Act for denying me “public accommodation”. Id. § 216.2(136). I was discriminated against by the Story County Attorney, who appears to have put his reputation with regard to the next election ahead of his office duties. He appeared to have been concerned that prosecuting a business for defrauding a transgender woman would reflect poorly upon his campaign for re-election due to how it might affect his standing within the business community.

   

• Lying to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission is not a crime in the State of Iowa, in which case the state aids and abets businesses who simply lie to the ICRC in order to shirk liability. Meanwhile, victims who suffer defamation from having false statements about them entered into the public record, then have our reputations marred. This in fact punishes victims of discrimination for coming forward. This is terrible and harmful public policy!!! It needs to be a crime to submit false statements and fraudulent documents to the ICRC!!

(vi) On November 11, 2023 I filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman in order to review the ICRC’s work with regard to my case. The Ombudsman’s response reviewed whether or not the Commission adhered to proper administrative procedure, but not whether or not their determinations were meritorious. The Ombudsman’s response gave clear indication that ICRC’s website fraudulently misrepresents, to both complainants and Iowa taxpayers, what is to be expected from them. The Ombudsman wrote:

• “[N]othing in the administrative rule describes a process by which the Iowa Civil Rights Commission must detail or explain the reason for denying a reopening. All that is required under rule 161-3.16(3) is a notice to the parties that the denial was made.”

• “Estabrook v Iowa Civil Rights Commission 283 N.W.2d 306 (Iowa 1979). The Court viewed the [ICRC]’s process as a mere administrative remedy, with the complainant having the option of filing a civil claim of discrimination in state or federal court once that administrative process is exhausted. Id. At 310. The Court determined that the legislature did not intend the [ICRC] to process every complaint even if it generated a prima facie case for discrimination This gives the Iowa Civil Rights Commission broad authority to determine which cases to process, even for cases that present a prima facie showing of discrimination.”

  • If ICRC is under no obligation to screen in a case even if there is probable cause, they should state that on their website. What they currently have written on their website is misleading, that if there is a “reasonable possibility of probable cause they will screen in case”. This does not align with their actual practice and procedure. and amounts to fraudulent misrepresentation by the STATE OF IOWA. The state ought write what one might reasonably expect on the website, that they are under no obligation to screen in a case, even when there is prima facie evidence of discrimination. What they currently have written misleads victims of discrimination and taxpayers.

63. According to the textbook used in my Business Law (BUS-185) class at Des Moines

Area Community College, Business Law Today by Roger LeRoy Miller,¹⁸ fraudulent

misrepresentation is, “Any misrepresentation, either by misstatement or by omission of the

material fact, knowingly made with the intention of deceiving another and on which a reasonable

person would and does rely to his detriment.” According to Ballantine’s Law Dictionary , “A

representation proceeding from, or characterized by, fraud, and the purpose of which is to

deceive. 37 Am J2d Fraud § 2. A representation that is knowingly untrue, or made without belief

in its truth, or made recklessly, and, in any event, for the purpose of inducing action upon it.

Clark v Haggard, 141 Conn 668, 109 A2d 358, 54 ALR2d 655.”¹⁹

64. My heart weeps for other Iowans who found themselves in similar situations as

myself, where the only government agency we have to turn to when discrimination occurs turns

us away and directs us to resources who cannot or will not help. As a person who was raised as a

while male, I am aware Ireceived opportunities and privileges many BIPOC people were not

afforded. I can ponder what it must be like for most people – people who have not performed

years of research in order to be able to file a lawsuit without the help of an attorney, as I have.

They likely file with the ICRC, are unfairly turned away, and leave jaded and disappointed by the

system. Many of those Iowans, like myself, were raised in public schools, where we learned

about Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, and together put our hands over our hearts and

swore our allegiance to this nation, “With liberty and justice for all.” I am so disappointed in the

STATE OF IOWA for not upholding these vital promises of our state and nation. It is apparent

that other victims who have valid complaints are turned away and advised to seek aid where

where is none. Here is another article by the Des Moines Register which indicates this very

fact: “Why 60% of Iowa workers’ civil rights complaints aren’t investigated; why process is so

difficult” by F. Amanda Tugade.²⁰ Note also that ICRC has a score of 1.2 for its Google review

score. Reviews show similar experiences as I had, showing “overwhelming evidence” to ICRC

only to have cases closed. Here are some posts in the Google reviews:

• 11 months ago Misty Brookhart wrote, “Filed complaint. First spoke with investigator on 11/22/21. On July 5 I was told that once it was finalized I would receive a copy of the report. Was told case not closed and haven’t missed out on anything. Aug 1 more information added to file and still no report. Have heard nothing since. Apparently they have had numerous cases resulting in their inability to get to mine. Apparently this has been an issue with other investigators at the iowa civil rights commission as well. It has been approximately two years since I first filed a complaint and still have heard absolutely nothing pertaining to my case other than they have been busy. It appears that laws are not being enforced even by those whose job is to enforce them. It is my belief that my complaint will be disregarded and nothing done based on lack of communication and effort by the ICRC.Update: case was drug out for two years. Finally received letter I had to ask for as it wasn’t sent to me nor was I contacted. “No discrimination found” despite actual evidence being given and founded by hud and disability rights iowa. Cases are ignored, passed around from person to person and then denied once time limit has ran out. Considering the evidence and repeated issues with this agency, It appears that those created to protect the rights of the disabled are committing discrimination themselves.”
• 4 weeks ago, “B.W.” wrote, “They will lose your paperwork and evidence so you won’t know what was used in the “investigation” of your complaint. Thankfully, Iowa’s Chapter 22 open records law allows you to request a copy of what they used. Someday their negligence will be exposed.”
• Another reviewer wrote, “This only exists as a beginning to your trial. You HAVE to submit something to these useless people if you want to proceed with sueing your employer. I gave them so much evidence and recited laws word for word. Don’t get your hopes up just submit whatever you need to submit and lawyer up. Submit your information and be ready to go to court otherwise don’t waste your time with this branch of government.”
• Mark wrote, “The whole process of filling a complaint, was nothing but a joke. They take way over the allotted time for an investigation. Mr. Lopes-Sanders was the only person that was great to deal with. The investigator had no clue as to what she was doing. Overall it was pathetic. I would give a zero if I could.“
• Another reviewer wrote, “If you’re brought here by unfortunate circumstances, please do not get your hopes up that maybe this organization will help you. “
• Another reviewer wrote, “Just a big Joke and waste of tax-payers money. They will always side with Employers.”

• Through nonfeasance, the Story County Attorney’s Office and Ames Police Department violated my 14th Amendment to “equal protection of the laws”: I attempted to file a complaint with both, against the tortfeasors involved in the Lockwood/Reliable case, for violating Iowa Code §714.8(4), “[A]ny person who makes any entry in… any public records… knowing the same to be false.” is guilty of fraud.” I pointed out that records stored or generated by the Iowa Civil Rights Commission are “public records” according to Iowa Code 22.1.3. The Ames Police, in reliance upon the Story County Attorney’s Office’s decision not to prosecute despite probable cause I attempted to present to them, which they refused to look at, would not allow me to file a complaint. As a result, I was a victim of a crime, have been scared around town for my safety because of what these people did to me, and was not able to qualify for restitution or victim’s services because the Story County Attorney’s Office chose not to prosecute. I am concerned that, due to the fact that the Story County Attorney is an elected position, it may have been seen as unpopular to prosecute popular local businesses for harming a transgender woman. Maybe they thought the business community might frown upon that; regardless the motive, I was denied “equal protection of the laws”.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) didn’t lift a finger:

• After I filed with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission in April 2022, I received a letter informing me that my complaint was dual-filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After the ICRC dropped my case, they sent a letter informing me I had 15 days to file with the EEOC to request they review my case (otherwise the EEOC would default to ICRC’s determination).  Although I did make the time limit, in the letter I received from the EEOC on 1-9-23, they basically said they defaulted to ICRC’s determination.  The EEOC gave me no indication they even looked at my case. It was just a form letter. The EEOC unfairly and drastically diminished my due process rights (and they likely do this to everybody!) The letter informed me I had 90 days to file in federal court from the date I received the letter.  Although the letter states that it was issued on 11/14/2022, I did not receive it until 1/9/2023.  I did not receive a copy in the mail, and was emailed a copy after contacting them to ask about the status of the case. By the time I received the letter, I had approximately one month left to file. This is a ridiculously short amount of time for Citizens to figure out how to file a federal case.  It seems to me that these short deadlines are given, along with complex and tedious procedures in order to prevent people from being able to file on time – essentially denying due process.