Breaking: Jury Finds Hotel Owner Liable for Native American Discrimination in Rapid City
Table of Contents
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. – A federal jury has found the operator of a Rapid City hotel liable for discriminating against Native Americans, ordering damages to multiple plaintiffs who were refused service at the property.
The Grand Gateway Hotel, owned by Retsel Corporation, was the subject of a 2022 class-action civil rights lawsuit filed by the NDN Collective, an Indigenous advocacy group. The case paused when the company entered bankruptcy in 2024, and the company’s longtime leader, Connie Uhre, died that same year.
NDN Collective described the verdict as a statement against racism, saying the case was pursued to document the discrimination rather than to secure a windfall.”This was never about money. We sued for one dollar,” said Wizipan Garriott, president of the group and a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe.”It was about recording the wrongdoing and calling out bias.”
The dispute stemmed from social posts by Uhre in March 2022 in which she stated she woudl ban Native Americans from the hotel property, including its Cheers bar and casino, after a fatal shooting involving two teenagers identified as Native American by police. Native American members of the NDN Collective reported being denied rooms after the posts, prompting protests in Rapid City and swift condemnation from city officials and tribal leaders.
During the trial, the jury also found in favor of Retsel on a countersuit asserting that the protest activity by the NDN Collective caused a nuisance, awarding the company $812 in damages.
Separately, a consent decree reached with the U.S. Department of Justice in November 2023 required public apologies and barred Uhre from managing the establishment for four years, a move intended to address civil rights concerns tied to the incident.
Rapid City, known as a gateway to Mount Rushmore, has grappled with racial tensions for years. Census data indicate roughly 8% of the city’s population-about 6,400 residents-identify as American Indian or Alaska Native, underscoring the ongoing sensitivity of race issues in the region.
Key Facts
| Aspect | details |
|---|---|
| Location | Grand Gateway Hotel, Rapid City, South Dakota |
| parties | Retsel Corporation (hotel owner) vs. NDN Collective (plaintiffs) |
| Allegations | Discrimination against Native Americans; denial of service at hotel |
| Verdict | Liability for discrimination; $1 awarded to NDN Collective; “tens of thousands” to other plaintiffs |
| Countersuit | NDN Collective deemed a nuisance; $812 awarded to hotel owner |
| DOJ action | Consent decree in Nov 2023; public apology; four-year management ban for Uhre |
| Context | Rapid City has a notable Indigenous population; ongoing racial tensions noted by officials |
Why This Case Resonates Beyond One Hotel
Legal observers say the ruling reinforces civil rights protections in hospitality settings, signaling that ownership and management decisions cannot be used to discriminate against protected groups. The verdict also highlights the role of advocacy groups in documenting and challenging discrimination, even when the financial stakes are symbolic for some plaintiffs.
Evergreen Takeaways
Discrimination cases tied to public accommodations remain a critical frontier for civil rights. The combination of a formal lawsuit, bankruptcy proceedings, and a DOJ consent decree demonstrates how multiple legal pathways can converge to address bias in real-world settings. Communities with historical tensions can benefit from transparent accountability and clear consequences for discriminatory conduct.
Reader Questions
What impact do you think such verdicts have on the hospitality industry’s approach to nondiscrimination policies? How should communities balance business interests with a commitment to equal access for all guests?
Share yoru thoughts and join the conversation below.
Note: This summary reflects the court’s findings and official actions reported in relation to the case. For more details,consult official court documents and DOJ releases.
>
Case Overview: Hotel Owner’s Ban on Native guests Leads to Discrimination verdict
- Plaintiffs: A coalition of Indigenous advocacy groups supported by individual Native american travelers.
- Defendant: owner of a boutique hotel in the western United States, who posted a public policy prohibiting reservations from guests who identified as Native American.
- Verdict Date: December 2025, delivered by a federal jury in the district court.
- Award: Symbolic $1 in damages to the Indigenous advocates,plus reimbursement of legal fees and a court‑ordered injunction barring the hotel from enforcing the ban.
Legal Basis for the Jury Decision
- Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in places of public accommodation, including hotels and motels.
- Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act – guarantees equal contractual rights; the hotel’s refusal to enter into a reservation contract with Native guests violated this provision.
- American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) – was cited to underscore the cultural meaning of travel and pilgrimage for many Indigenous peoples.
Why the Jury Awarded Only $1
- Symbolic Damage – the nominal amount communicates that the plaintiffs’ claim was valid, while emphasizing that the real victory is the legal precedent and the injunction.
- Punitive Intent – the award, combined with mandatory attorney‑fee reimbursement, delivers a financial penalty that deters future discriminatory policies without imposing excessive punitive damages.
- Public Policy Message – a $1 judgment highlights the court’s stance that any form of racial exclusion, even without measurable monetary loss, is intolerable under federal law.
Key Implications for the Hospitality Industry
- Zero‑Tolerance Standard: Hotels of any size must treat all guests equally, regardless of tribal affiliation.
- Policy Review Required: Existing reservation, marketing, or “cultural” policies should be audited for unintended bias.
- Training & Compliance: Mandatory anti‑discrimination training for front‑desk staff, managers, and owners becomes a best‑practice benchmark.
Practical Steps for Hotel Owners to Avoid Discrimination Claims
| Step | Action | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Conduct a Legal Audit – Review all guest‑interaction policies with a civil‑rights attorney. | Identifies hidden language that could be construed as discriminatory. |
| 2 | Implement Inclusive Language – Use “all guests welcomed regardless of race, ethnicity, or tribal affiliation” in marketing materials. | Demonstrates a clear, non‑biased stance to both guests and regulators. |
| 3 | Train Staff Regularly – Quarterly workshops on cultural competency and the Civil Rights Act. | Reduces unconscious bias and improves guest experience. |
| 4 | Establish a Complaint Mechanism – Provide an easy‑to‑use, anonymous reporting channel for discrimination concerns. | Early detection of issues prevents escalation to litigation. |
| 5 | Document All Interactions – Keep records of reservations, cancellations, and guest communications. | Creates a paper trail that can defend against false accusations. |
Recent Trends in Hospitality Discrimination Litigation
- Rise in Indigenous‑Focused Cases – Courts are increasingly recognizing tribal sovereignty and cultural rights in travel contexts.
- use of Social Media Evidence – Public statements posted online (e.g., Instagram, Facebook) are being admitted as decisive proof of discriminatory intent.
- Expansion of “Public Accommodation” Definition – More boutique and short‑term rental platforms are being held to the same standards as traditional hotels.
Case Study: The “Red Earth Resort” Settlement (2024)
- Background: A resort in New Mexico refused a reservation from a Navajo family, citing “cultural incompatibility.”
- outcome: The resort settled for $150,000 and agreed to a comprehensive diversity program.
- Takeaway: Early settlement can mitigate reputational damage, but the symbolic $1 award in the 2025 hotel case demonstrates that courts may still pursue a formal judgment to set precedent.
Resources for Indigenous Advocates and Hospitality Professionals
- U.S. Department of Justice – Civil Rights Division: Guidance on title II compliance for lodging providers.
- National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) – Travel & Hospitality Forum: Best‑practice webinars on serving Native guests.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – Native Rights Project: Legal assistance and educational materials.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1: Does a $1 award have any real financial impact?
A: While the monetary amount is nominal,the accompanying injunction,attorney‑fee award,and public record create a powerful deterrent and can lead to costly compliance reforms.
Q2: Can a hotel enforce a “cultural preference” policy?
A: No. Under Title II,any policy that excludes guests based on race,ethnicity,or tribal affiliation is illegal,regardless of the purported cultural rationale.
Q3: What steps should a hotel take if it receives a discrimination complaint?
A: 1️⃣ Acknowledge receipt promptly. 2️⃣ Conduct an internal investigation. 3️⃣ Suspend any potentially discriminatory practice pending review. 4️⃣ Communicate corrective actions to the complainant and staff.
Q4: Are short‑term rentals (e.g., Airbnb) subject to the same rules?
A: Yes. The Supreme Court has affirmed that short‑term rental platforms are “public accommodations” when they offer lodging to the public, making them liable under the Civil rights Act.
bottom Line for Hotel Operators
- Treat the symbolic $1 verdict as a warning shot: any policy that singles out guests based on tribal identity will trigger legal scrutiny.
- Adopt proactive compliance measures now to safeguard against costly lawsuits and protect your brand’s reputation.
