Trans Woman Claims Nonprofit “Reliable Street” Retaliated Against Her for Filing a Civil Rights Complaint:

by Sondra Wilson.  [email protected]  Originally posted 11/9/2022. Last update: 3/15/23.

Page Contents:

I. Why I am making this public

II. My Testimony:

1. 1. 1. 1. Volunteered at Reliable Street for ~ 6 months, put in management position of garden and prairie restoration
            
         2. Kicked off the property with a vague explanation which didn’t add up; original agreement violated
            
         3. Discovered a slanderous complaint(s) against me led to Reliable Street’s breach
            
         4. Why I Filed a Complaint with ICRC
         5. CEO Lyndsay Nissen and her friend Charlie Esker wrote extremely damaging lies about me to persuade ICRC to drop the case
            
         6. ICRC closed the case prematurely
            
         7. ICRC denied my appeal, despite evidence Nissen and Esker lied to them
            
         8. ICRC’s recommendation to “Find an Attorney” not helpful – State of Iowa has limited resources for low-income Iowans
            
         9. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defaulted to ICRC’s judgment – didn’t appear to even investigate, and left me with an unfairly-short deadline
            
         10. Filed with Ombudsman against ICRC; was informed ICRC isn’t legally obligated to take cases even when discrimination is apparent
         11. Kim Reynold’s Iowa is an unwelcome environment for transgender people
         12. Torts, Losses, and Damages
         13. Equitable remedies I am seeking

I. Why I am making this public:

      First off, I want to sincerely apologize to everyone involved with Lockwood Cafe and Reliable Street who had nothing to do with this situation.  It really isn’t fair that a couple/few people from that circle did these things to me, however it is extremely important that this issue gets resolved.  What happened is completely unacceptable and should never happen to anyone.

     I am writing this to expose the truth about how I was exploited, discriminated against, and defrauded by the CEO of Reliable Street, Lyndsay Nissen, and defrauded by her friend, Charlie Esker, who then tried to cover up what they did to me.  If you find this hard to believe – please – I urge you to read through this article and look at the evidence.

      I am also attempting to expose that the State of Iowa and the (federal) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) are – in my opinion – not providing adequate protections for victims of discrimination. 

     Nissen and Esker wrote extremely damaging, defamatory statements about me to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC) in order to persuade them to drop the discrimination case I filed against the nonprofit Reliable Street, Lockwood Cafe, and Love Club LLC, three interrelated businesses wherein a few people within them politically attacked me.  These actions were performed against me in part in order to cover up that Reliable Street breached our agreement after I spent approximately six months working their land. I wish I didn’t have to write this article, however:

1. I suffered losses, injuries, and severe emotional pain and suffering as a result of these businesses and private individuals’ actions.
   
2. I was exploited for approximately six months of labor: I would have never volunteered there if I knew they were going to treat me like they did and violate our agreement.  I am legally protected via the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
   
3. Owners of two of the businesses involved (Reliable Street, Lockwood Cafe) did not respond to the letter I wrote them, therefore I filed the initial complaint with the ICRC based on recommendations of the Better Business Bureau and multiple attorneys,  I did not know Love Club LLC was involved until after I wrote the letter to Lockwood Cafe and Reliable Street.
   
4. I was falsely accused of “stalking and harassing” a Lockwood Cafe employee, “harassing” multiple Lockwood Cafe employees, and “saying racist comments” as well as other extremely damaging, very false allegations within Nissen/Esker’s statements. I am showing evidence publicly (below) in order to clear my name from these horrible accusations, and to expose that Nissen and Esker appear to have performed predatory character assassination against me in order to get ICRC to dismiss the case.  If persons other than Esker and Nissen accused me of any of these things, then I was slandered, and want their names brought forth. I also want to alert Lockwood Cafe’s staff that these things were written about both them and me because they also know these allegations are false (or if they’re unsure, I want them to see evidence so they know who is lying).
   
5. Currently I feel failed by the State of Iowa with regard to this case.  I feel no other choice than to write about this publicly in order to try to find legal counsel – and more importantly justice.  I will file the case myself if I am unable to find help.
   
6. Many Iowans who face injustice do not have the legal knowledge nor do they find the assistance they need to win in court.  By making this public I hope more people can learn to fight back against injustice through documentation and broadcasting. This webpage is being broadcast for First Amendment purposes.
   

II. My Testimony:

1. Volunteered at Reliable Street, put in management position of garden and prairie restoration:

    In October 2021 I was asked by the CEO of Reliable Street, Lyndsay Nissen, to manage the garden on their property. The garden was built by the local high school club SHEPH (Students Helping to End Poverty and Hunger), however students had limited time to work on it.  I was asked in part because I was a regular customer who got along with staff and the community, and because I have extensive experience with gardening and applied ethnobotany. The owner of Lockwood Cafe offered me 50% discounts on everything I ordered in order to contribute toward the garden efforts, and two Lockwood employees expressed interest in helping as well (henceforth “Employee #1” and “Employee #2”).  Both employees attended multiple meetings with SHEPH and myself, and one of them volunteered in the garden a few times.  After discussing the topic with SHEPH and some Lockwood staff members, I submitted a proposal to install native tallgrass prairie surrounding the garden.  Nissen approved the proposal on October 27, 2021.

     I worked approximately 20 hrs/week for 6 months volunteering for Reliable Street.  Volunteer work I performed includes:

• Hands-on labor and technical R & D for the garden, in collaboration with SHEPH and involved Lockwood employees – documentation of some of the volunteer work – much more available.
• Arranged for three prairie restoration professionals and one composting specialist (from ISU) to assist with on-site consultation and planning in order to formulate a workable plan.  Also coordinated with the Ames Fire Department to ensure our plan complied with regulations (for prairie burns).
  
• Created and disseminated this flier for the open mic.  Attracted many people to the open mic events over the course of several months.
  
• Per Nissen’s request, set up, co-hosted, and hosted multiple open mic events.
• Regularly informed Nissen and the owner of Lockwood regarding garden/prairie updates.  Remained open to feedback, and integrated ideas from involved community members.
  
• Employee #1 remained actively involved in the garden and prairie restoration, but she was very busy she didn’t have time for hands-on work in spring 2022.

     I want to say that up until the incident (described below), I honestly felt respected and cared about by Lockwood’s staff.  Several of them went out of their way regularly to let me know I was appreciated and welcome.  About every time I went in, various employees would write on my cup or my to-go box.  I used to cut out the messages they would leave me and hang them on my fridge:

2. Kicked off the property, given a vague explanation which didn’t add up:

     After speaking with the owner of Lockwood about some small financial needs for the garden – and possibly letting SHEPH have a fundraiser on the property –  she scheduled a meeting with Nissen and myself for the following day on March 31, 2022 (Transgender Day of Visibility).  As the three of us walked toward the garden, Nissen informed me that there were “multiple complaints” about me “violating peoples’ space”, and that I was being removed from the project.  I asked what the nature of the complaints were (what I did which made people feel violated), however I was not told any details because they wanted to “protect the identity” of the accusers.  I told them I really didn’t know what this was about, and that it felt unfair.  I was told not to come back to the property.

     I wracked my brain for days trying to think of who felt uncomfortable around me. I told some friends who I frequently saw at Lockwood/Reliable what happened – why they wouldn’t be seeing me around. I asked several if I had ever made them feel uncomfortable, and all of them emphatically said “no”.  I messaged the President of SHEPH to tell her what happened, and that I could no longer help with the garden.  Here was her response (note that most names throughout my testimony are redacted):

3. Discovered that a slanderous complaint(s) against me
led to Reliable Street’s breach of our agreement:

     On April 7, in response to a letter informing her I was unexpectedly kicked off the property, Employee #1 told me that she had in fact complained – which came as a complete surprise.  I had not seen her since these last texts they sent to me two weeks before I was kicked off the property, and obviously her demeanor and words gave me no indication they fet uncomfortable around me or that my actions were unwelcome:

    Here is the letter Employee #1 sent to me to inform me for the first time she felt I had “violated her space and not respected her boundaries”.  To this day I have no idea why she felt this way: she never indicated any of this – in fact the opposite. I feel manipulated because she acted like my friend and never hinted she felt upset or off-put by me.  I strongly believe she “felt” uncomfortable around me (which she points out in this letter), and conveyed it in a way which made me appear as if I had violated her. She also points out that nothing was ever said to me – by looking at our last interactions how could I have known? 

     If anyone had told me that something I was doing was bothering anyone else, I absolutely would have adjusted my behavior without issue, but looking back at this I just feel slandered – even perhaps unintentionally slandered.

        However, I feel moreso that Lockwood/Reliable handled her complaint unfairly and in a discriminatory manner. The reason I have redacted some of the above names while not redacting others is because I think Employee #1’s actions may have been negligent. She felt a certain way but conveyed it in a way which blamed me instead of recognizing her own feelings.  The names I have not redacted throughout this testimony, however, are those who wrote false and malicious comments.

4. Why I Filed a Complaint with ICRC:

     I wrote a letter to Lockwood/Reliable after I learned who complained – to show them that from my perspective this was unfair, and to ask them to talk through this with me or at least reimburse me for my labor.  It was inappropriate for them to treat me like this after I had worked so hard for so many months helping to drastically improve their property.  I believe I was prejudiced (pre-judged) with an assumption of guilt against me because a non-transgender woman complained that a transgender woman was “violating her space” – a typical (and vague) political attack against trans women in this modern era.  Further – it really doesn’t make sense that she made this complaint against me based on our interactions.

     After receiving no response to the letter, I called the Better Business Bureau and multiple defamation attorneys (because I was accused of things which were apparently bad enough to get me kicked off the property). Nearly all of them urged me to file with Iowa Civil Rights Commission.

     When I initially contacted ICRC in April, the receptionist listened carefully to my testimony, then urged me to file.  She said complaints often end up with a mediator who meets with both parties and talks through things. She also said that cases often end in a settlement.  This is exactly what I wanted because I was not given any reason as to what I allegedly did. I was hoping a mediator would help talk us through it so I could find out what I was accused of.  Also because kicking me off violated the agreement the businesses and I had come to, I wanted reimbursed for my 6 months of labor.  I would not have volunteered if I knew they were going violate the agreement: I intended to leave with a portfolio of my restoration and gardening work, but instead left with my reputation marred by accusations and rumors.

     On April 29, 2022 I filed this complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission.  In the complaint I requested reimbursement and for Lockwood/Reliable to create a progressive discipline policy to protect all parties when handling employee or customer complaints in the future.

     I believe that there was discrimination involved because no one communicated anything to me: people apparently felt uncomfortable and lodged complaints against me. I believe that if I were not a transgender woman, I would have been “talked to” instead of “talked about”.  If a non-transgender woman were working in the garden and there were complaints against her, it would be a cultural norm and standard business practice to converse with her.  I was not given that respect: instead I was pre-judged and barred from the property without explanation.   Furthermore, I don’t believe the complaints have merit.  I feel emotionally manipulated and exploited for six months of labor I would never have performed had I known I was going to be treated like this, and if I’d known they were going to have me just restore the property, then kick me off just before planting season.

5. CEO Lyndsay Nissen and her friend Charlie Esker lied about me to the ICRC, wrote several extremely damaging statements:

    On August 3, 2022 ICRC issued this Preliminary Case Review wherein they announced they were closing the case.  In it, Nissen and Esker told several lies. Here I will post a few of their statements adjacent to evidence which proves they lied to ICRC:

Lie #1: Not helping to pay for prairie seeds:

       Nissen lied about me not helping pay for prairie seeds:

      Here is proof I sent her $100 toward the seeds:

     Immediately after I sent Nissen the $100, I messaged Employee #1 Nissen’s payment info because she, too, wanted to pitch in $100 toward prairie seeds (Nissen said not to worry about it, and that she would cover the rest which was about $40.).  Employee #1’s response was “Love you”:

Lie #2: Didn’t listen to others and “Bulldozed” people:

     Remember, however, the President of SHEPH’s response when I told her I was removed from the project:

   Also remember Employee #1’s responses when we spoke about the garden – less than two weeks before I was removed from the project:

    These are just a couple examples.  I could make several more available, however I think this is enough to show I was falsely accused by Nissen in an attempt to put my character into serious question.  Nissen did not attend gardening meetings, and generally wasn’t around to see our interactions.  She wrote that I “bulldozed” people and “cornered her” and several other statements in order to cast me in a negative light to ICRC so they would drop the case and it worked.

Lie #3: “stalking and harassing” employee #1, and “harassing” Lockwood staff:

     Nissen wrote:

      Esker wrote (actually everything Esker wrote here was a lie):

       So again I never saw Employee #1 since those previous text messages I shared.  I have no clue where she lives nor do I care nor have I ever asked, followed her anywhere – nor cared to: it is easy to tell I was not “stalking and harassing” her based on her demeanor and what she said in the texts. 

    It is extremely sad and really upsets me that all I wanted from the ICRC was to talk things through with Reliable Street and come to a reasonable settlement, but Nissen and her friend went to these lengths to prevent such a simple ask. I would like to see them both charged with fraud, however local authorities did not take action on this when I contacted them about it.  I feel like the State of Iowa has really failed on this case so far.  I believe that if I didn’t share this publicly, adverse parties would easily be able to afford an attorney and publicist, and “shoving me under in court” would be easy for them.  I am sharing this publicly for self-defense purposes.

Lie #6: Disobeyed Nissen, began prairie installation without permission:

Nissen wrote that I she encouraged me to talk with others about the prairie, but that I did not and instead just began doing it without permission:

It was another lie from Nissen, however.  I spoke with SHEPH about it – one of the students was particularly excited about it because she had written a paper about it, and many Lockwood employees were excited about it.  Employee #1 wrote the following when I truthfully told her Nissen had approved the project:

Lie #5: Esker was merely a “patron”:

      I am not sure which definition Esker meant by “patron”:

1. a person who gives financial or other support to a person, organization, cause, or activity.
2. a customer, especially a regular one, of a store, restaurant, or theater.

      Based on the context of Esker’s statements, however, it appears they meant “customer”.  First off – I have never asked Lockwood/Reliable’s customer’s for money, but the disingenuous part of Esker’s statements with regard to them being a mere “patron” is that Esker sells art at Reliable Street’s gallery. At the time I received ICRC’s case review, Esker also had an art studio provided to them by Reliable Street (Esker may still have the studio today, but I don’t know).  If I did not know these things (if I were the ICRC analyzing the case), I would assume Esker was merely an unbiased customer who witnessed these terrible things.  I believe this is part of how Esker and Nissen intentionally deceived the ICRC (and I believe ICRC should have looked into this closer after I pointed it out in my appeal).

List of Nissen/Esker’s lies – (possibly other people involved):

      Nearly everything Esker and Nissen wrote about me was false.  I have posted evidence which strongly puts several of their statements into question, and I think it is enough that it should put their other statements into question.  Anyone who knows me knows I firmly stand against racism, and they even accused me of that.  Here is a list of lies about me Nissen and Esker submitted to ICRC:

• saying racist comments.
• performing volunteer work and spending money without authorization.
• becoming “obsessed” with a female Lockwood Cafe employee, then “stalking” and “harassing” her.
• “harassing” multiple Lockwood Cafe employees and asking them for money.
• asking patrons for money (presumably they meant customers?).
  
• asking SHEPH (Ames’ high school gardening club) for money. Although we discussed finances and talked about having a fundraiser, I did not ask them for money.  Esker claimed they witnessed me asking them for money even though Esker was never at any meetings nor present at any of our discussions.  I never asked them for money.
  
• that I did not listen to others involved in the garden or prairie projects – that I “bulldozed them”.
• That I wanted to raise money to buy prairie seed for the prairie but never did.  

      I believe Nissen and Esker used false statements in a manner which constitutes extrinsic fraud (fraud used to deny a person due process) and character assassination against me in order to convince ICRC to drop the case.

6. ICRC Closed the Case Prematurely:

  According to ICRC’s “Outline of Complaint Process” webpage, ICRC uses the following standard when screening cases:

“The Iowa Civil Rights Commission issues screening decisions based on the information collected to date. If the information indicates a “reasonable possibility of a probable cause determination or the legal issues in the complaint need development” the Commission will “screen in” a case for further investigation….

During the screening stage, the Commission draws all “rational, reasonable, and otherwise permissible” inferences in Complainant’s favor…. Importantly, the Commission does not evaluate credibility at the screening stage, and instead evaluates only whether the stated facts create a “reasonable possibility” for a probable cause finding. The Commission relies in part on its own experience and expertise with the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA), while remaining mindful that many cases turn on circumstantial—rather than direct—evidence of discrimination….“

     Despite this, on Aug. 3 ICRC closed the case.  In my opinion it looks to me that ICRC drew all “rational, reasonable, and otherwise permissible” inferences in the Defendant’s favor.  When there are so many facts in dispute, and clear evidence at least some of what Nissen wrote was false, I believe ICRC should have determined “further investigation was needed”.  Instead they closed the case while this issue remains very serious and unresolved. 

     If all a business has to do is lie about a situation in order to get ICRC to drop a case, then minorities aren’t sufficiently protected in Iowa.  I believe ICRC’s decision to close the case prematurely was negligent., and if they are permitted by Congress, Courts, or Executive branch to be so lax, then the State of Iowa is negligent.

7. ICRC denied my appeal, despite evidence Nissen and Esker lied to them:

          When ICRC closed the case, I was given a strict 30-day time limit to file the appeal.  This was an extremely difficult deadline for me to reach: not only did it interfere with my college semester at DMACC, but also it was traumatizing in general to be accused of all these heinous things.  It took me more than a week just to finish reading ICRC’s Preliminary Case Review because it was so emotionally upsetting for me to read what Nissen and Esker wrote about me.  I was able to write just a small amount into the appeal each day before I became so hurt and upset I had to work on something else. 

     One day before the deadline I emailed ICRC and let them know I was having a difficult time finishing it in time, and instead of offering an extension they told me it was a “strict deadline”.  That is why the the appeal I filed was not well-written or as thorough as it could have been.  I think that ICRC should allow more time for Complainants to appeal, because there is a lot of trauma in these situations.  I’m sure many people – like myself – have a difficult time finding help from an attorney.  Letter from ICRC denying my appeal.

8. ICRC’s recommendation to “Find an Attorney” not helpful for low income Iowans:

      After ICRC dropped the case, their advice to me was “find an attorney”.  They recommended finding one on the Iowa State Bar Website, which directs people to www.IowaFindALawyer.com. Besides contacting all 9 defamation attorneys and all 7 fraud attorneys listed on that website, I also contacted the following organizations – some are recommended for “Low Income Legal Assistance”, and others are advocacy groups I thought may be able to help:

• Polk County Bar Association Volunteer Lawyers Project  
• Story County Legal Aid 
• Iowa Legal Aid 
• Drake University Legal Clinic – Recommended I contact the Lawyer Referral Service at 515-243-3179, who also was unable to help.
  
• Neal & Bea Smith Legal Clinic
• OneIowa
  
• Lambda Legal
• ACLU of Iowa
• Lavender Legal

   Nearly all the above legal assistant organizations told me they “cannot take fee-generating cases” – they can only help with “divorce/custody ” or “tenant/landlord” issues. Because so many people recommended I contacted Iowa Legal Aid, I believe many Iowans are under the false impression that tax dollars help low-income Iowans access legal assistance when in fact it is only for a very limited type of case.

    Although I did contact several attorneys, the least expensive quote I received was $275/hr which is far beyond what I can afford.  Although some attorneys do work on contingency, they seem to be few and far between. Most attorneys just gave me a form letter telling me they could not take my case at this time – no reason was given. 

    If I did not build this case (and this article) myself, I would have had no shot at obtaining justice.  It has been a very tedious job I don’t expect most people would have time for.  In short – I think ICRC’s recommendation to “go to the state BAR website and find an attorney” was not a realistic solution for most Iowans – especially minorities.  I do not believe we are currently providing “liberty and justice for all” here in Iowa.  We can and should do better.

9. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defaulted to ICRC’s judgment – didn’t appear to investigate, and left me with an unfairly-short deadline:

     When I originally filed with ICRC, I received a letter informing me my complaint was dual-filed with the EEOC, and then when ICRC dropped the case they gave me a letter informing me I had 15 days to file with the EEOC to request they review my case (otherwise they default to ICRC’s determination).  Although I did make the time limit, in the letter I received from the EEOC on 1-9-23 basically said they defaulted to ICRC’s determination.  Much as with ICRC, I believe the EEOC was negligent in their determination.

     Additionally the EEOC’s 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.  As of today I have less than two weeks to file in federal court.  This is a ridiculously short time for the average American 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.

10. Filed with Ombudsman against ICRC – was told ICRC isn’t require to take cases even when discrimination is apparent:

     On 11/11/22 I filed this complaint against the ICRC with Iowa’s Office of Ombudsman, and on 1/18/23 I received this response which essentially stated that even when there is prima facie evidence of discrimination, ICRC is not required to pursue the case.  Their purpose is to take “some cases” in order to relieve the courts from some amount of burden.  Basically – if they don’t take your case then you’re on your own. Here is the section of the Ombudsman’s case review which shows ICRC is not obligated to screen in cases even when discrimination is apparent (I strongly believe this shows negligence on the part of the State of Iowa – we ought strive for “liberty and justice for all”):

 11.  Kim Reynold’s Iowa is an unwelcome environment for transgender people:

     I couldn’t help but notice Governor Kim Reynold’s name written across the top of of ICRC’s decision to close the case.  During the time I was dealing with putting out the flames of this emergency and trying to get help from the State of Iowa, on Oct. 31 Governor Reynolds appeared on public television making disparaging and harmful comments about transgender people in her campaign ad.

    Additionally, Governor Reynolds has repeatedly tampered with transgender patients’ access to medical care despite the American Medical Association urging governors not to do so – including during the time I was dealing with the emotional pain and suffering involved with the Reliable/Lockwood case.  While I was scheduled for surgery consultations, my doctor informed me that Iowa’s Attorney General halted medical coverage and my consultations for surgery were canceled.  This occurred after a Polk County judge ruled that state law denying Medicaid coverage for gender-confirmation surgery violates the Iowa Constitution and the Iowa Civil Rights Act.  Judge Kelly stated the law singling out and blocking medically necessary care for transgender Medicaid beneficiaries was both discriminatory and unconstitutional.

12. Torts, Losses, and Damages:

Lockwood Cafe –

     Multiple employees appeared to have slandered me, injuring my reputation badly enough it caused me to lose my position and cause me a loss of future earnings.  After years of training in gardening skills and ethnobotany, this was the first time in my life I had access to land to implement my skills.  I meticulously documented “before and after” pics to create a portfolio to help me secure future jobs. Although I don’t know precisely what Employee #1 or Employee #2 said about me (nor do I know their motive), Nissen alleged Employee #1 accused me of “stalking and harassing”, and Employee #2 of “saying racially insensitive comments”.  Regardless of what Nissen said, however, it is apparent that at least one Lockwood employee said injurious falsehoods which injured my reputation.

• general damages –
  • emotional pain and suffering – $20,000
  • injury to reputation – $20,000 
    • About my reputation – I am a DMACC Honors student and a member of Phi Theta Kappa.  I have maintained a 4.0 GPA at Des Moines Area Community College and am on the President’s List.  In 2018 I founded Wild Willpower following years of development, and I’m about to finish my second book, “The Hidden History of Law“.  I co-authored a textbook on ethnobotany with U.S. Army Veteran and wilderness survival instructor Richard Lonewolf, and founded Wild Willpower to help sponsor other Native American teachers and get this important knowledge to the world.  I am an artist who hitchhiked the USA approximately 17 years with my guitar, and have written several original songs which I perform locally.  I am a transgender woman, so I am constantly working to overcome stigmatization and typical prejudices against me.  How I treat others and the respect I try to give others is extremely important to me because I know I represent more than myself.  I hope that by what I bring to this world that future generations will not suffer the same prejudices and misunderstandings, and because of the allegations against me my life’s work and how people perceive me in general has been harmed.  It is unfair to me, to my school and teachers who are investing in me, and to everyone I’ve worked with who has invested in me and/or Wild Willpower to have put my reputation on the line in this way.
      

Reliable Street and Charlie Esker (and Love Club LLC) –

     Submitted fraudulent misrepresentations to the ICRC in order to convince them to drop the case, and thereby deny me due process. This form of fraud is known as extrinsic fraud.  Nissen and Esker’s misrepresentations amounted to commission of character assassination against me.  It should be noted that Employee #1 and Esker are very close friends, which I believe is part of Esker’s motive.  Additionally Esker was provided an art studio by Reliable Street at the time, and shows and sells art at the Reliable Street art gallery.  These are some reasons I believe Esker aided and abetted Nissen.  Although Esker is an openly transgender artist well known throughout the community, Esker committed what is called lateral violence – ” anger and rage is directed towards members within a marginalised or oppressed community rather than towards the oppressors of the community”.

      I accepted a management position offered by Nissen with regard to the garden.  Nissen also approved my proposal to install tallgrass prairie.  I worked diligently for nearly six months (20 hrs/wk) under the impression that (1) I would not be removed from the projects prior to spring planting, (2) I would participate in both these projects through their fruition, and (3) I would possess a portfolio of my work.  I documented before and after photos of my work and recorded most of my hours in order to create a portfolio.  I intended to use the portfolio to secure future jobs – to showcase my skills to potential employers and/or project heads.  I am proud of the work I did, and that I had found a role within my local community.  Instead my work was sabotaged by slander, and I left the project with my reputation marred.  I left robbed of approximately six months of labor, and did not receive the reward (finished project) I reasonably expected.  That is why I believe the court should award expectation damages in accordance with the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

     I still suffer a great deal of emotional distress caused by these people.  Following the fraudulent misrepresentations made to ICRC, my reputation was severely damaged.  I was accused of crimes I never would commit, and which play into peoples’ typical prejudices and fears against transgender women.  Since the incident, when I attend local events, I regularly see Nissen and other people from the space, and have feared for my safety on multiple occasions.  There are several events I do not attend when I know these people are present, and I no longer feel welcome in spaces I previously was welcomed.  These people have shown me that they are willing to lie and hurt other people, and it scares me “to what end”.  I don’t know what they’ve told other people about me, however I do know what they have told some local friends, and what those friends were told about me was false.

     I need to clear my name from these allegations against me, and I strongly believe the court should award the following damages:

• general damages –
  • emotional pain and suffering – $200,000
    
  • injury to reputation – $200,000
• special damages –
  • hours of (would-be volunteer) labor – Oct 20, 2021 through March 31, 2022 = approximately 23 weeks.  Performed approximately 20 hours of labor per week.    23 x 20 = 460 hours of labor.  At $15/hr that would amount to $6,900.
    
  • hours of labor working this case – since March 31, 2022 I have spent approximately 20 hours/week working on this case.  As of today (Feb. 2, 2023), that amounts to 44 weeks.  44 x 20 hrs = 880. 880 x $20/hr = $17,600.
• punitive damages – I believe the court ought award punitive damages because Esker and Nissen’s libelous statements were done with malice.

Nissen and Love Club, LLC –

      Although Reliable Street, Nissen, and Esker appear liable, I suspect that Love Club LLC is also liable.  Nissen ought personally be hheld liable for actions she performed on behalf of Love Club LLC and Reliable Street in accordance with the responsible corporate officer doctrine.

     When I accepted the management position for the garden, I was kept under the impression I was volunteering my time and energy on behalf of Reliable Street, a non-profit organization. 

    On Feb. 21, 2022 I forwarded an Iowa Sales/Use/Excise Tax Exemption Certificate to Nissen for use in purchasing the prairie seeds on behalf of Reliable Street.  When I saw her in person a few days later she informed me that she couldn’t order the seeds through Reliable Street because the garden and prairie may be outside the scope of the 501c3.  She told me she would “order them through the LLC instead.”   (This was soon before I Venmoed her the money). I did not know what she meant until after I was banned from the property, at which time I looked up on the County Assessor’s website to see who owned the property: Love Club LLC.

    When I received the prairie seeds Nissen ordered, I also received a copy of the invoice.  I do not know whose card they were purchased from, however I suspect they were purchased by Love Club LLC or by Nissen using her personal account.  If that is the case, then I believe Love Club LLC violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, and Nissen covered it up within her filing to ICRC. After I raised the issue of Love Club violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, Nissen accused me of not paying her for prairie seeds, then said I was performing the volunteer labor on behalf of Reliable Street, who rents from Love Club.

      Within the last couple pages the original complaint I filed with ICRC, I wrote the following with regard to Love Club violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, as cited from Society for Human Resources Management, “An employee is a worker who performs services for the employer…. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) defines the term “employ” to include “to suffer or permit to work” for an employer. Employees must be paid at least minimum wage….

    Under FLSA regulations, an individual cannot volunteer services to a private, for-profit company.

     There are no general regulations that permit volunteering of services to an employer in the private sector. All hours worked must be paid. According to the FLSA, an employer must pay all employees not less than the minimum wage for all hours worked. The FLSA regulation 29 C.F.R. §785.44 states that time spent in work for public or charitable purposes at the employer’s request, or under the employer’s direction or control… is working time.“

      While I was under the impression that I was volunteering for Reliable Street, I think it was disingenuous for Nissen to pay for prairie resources using Love Club’s account or her personal account, but then tell me I’m volunteering for the non-profit.  I would like for the court to determine which account Nissen used to pay for the seeds. If it was Love Club’s account, then Love Club ought be held accountable for exploiting me for free labor.  If Nissen used Love Club or her personal account to pay for the seeds, then I believe she manipulated me to perform free labor to improve her personal property, in which case I ought be paid for the labor.  If this is the case, then Love Club and/or Nissen ought be liable for the above damages I attributed to Reliable Street previously.

State of Iowa –

The Iowa Civil Rights Commission‘s determination was negligent.  According to their website, “The Iowa Civil Rights Commission issues screening decisions based on the information collected to date. If the information indicates a “reasonable possibility of a probable cause determination or the legal issues in the complaint need development” the Commission will “screen in” a case for further investigation….

During the screening stage, the Commission draws all “rational, reasonable, and otherwise permissible” inferences in Complainant’s favor…. Importantly, the Commission does not evaluate credibility at the screening stage, and instead evaluates only whether the stated facts create a “reasonable possibility” for a probable cause finding. The Commission relies in part on its own experience and expertise with the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA), while remaining mindful that many cases turn on circumstantial—rather than direct—evidence of discrimination….“

     Despite this, ICRC appeared to draw all “rational, reasonable, and otherwise permissible” inferences in Defendant’s favor.  Even when it was blatant that some facts Defendant wrote were false, ICRC turned a blind eye in favor of the Defendant in a manner which enabled the discrimination to go unchecked.  From my perspective, the State of Iowa – where we were raised to say the Pledge of Allegiance and swear “liberty and justice for all” – does not actually uphold this guarantee.  I was treated unjustly in a way that hurts me and my life today, and ICRC said, “Go find a private attorney.”  No aid to afford one, and the court systems are extremely complex and daunting to navigate by one’s self.  I believe ICRC’s determination and lack of support are an example of misfeasance, and we as Iowans need a system which focuses on “exacting justice” instead of enabling bullying and manipulation to go unchecked.

     While the State of Iowa has an Office of Ombudsman to investigate actions of other state agencies, their office revealed that Iowa has literally written it into law that ICRC is not required by law to take appropriate action on a case “even when there is prima facie evidence of discrimination”.  

     If all a business has to do is lie about a situation in order to get ICRC to drop a case, then minorities aren’t sufficiently protected in Iowa.   The State of Iowa is negligent and recklessly endangers minorities.  Additionally, although the State does protect some workers under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, the state appears to enable discrimination against volunteers and persons outside the workplace.  The State of Iowa aids and abets discriminators.

Threshold remuneration test

Related Injustices:

Transgender Iowan, arrested for going in the women’s restroom in 2006, still seeks justice

Falsely accused of assault, officer warns Ames resident to “leave the state” for her safety (2009)