South Dakota hotel owner found liable for discrimination against Native Americans

A federal jury in Rapid City, South Dakota, on Friday found Retsel Corporation, owner of the Grand Gateway Hotel, liable for discriminating against Native Americans and ordered the hotel to pay damages to several plaintiffs, including a token $1 award to the NDN Collective, the Indigenous advocacy group that filed the lawsuit in 2022. The verdict marks a rare civil rights victory over discriminatory practices in lodging and comes after years of legal twists tied to bankruptcy and leadership changes.

The case centers on statements made by Connie Uhre, the hotel’s longtime operator, who posted in March 2022 that she would ban Native Americans from the property after a fatal shooting at the hotel involving two teenagers identified by police as Native American. In the wake of those posts, Native American members of the NDN Collective attempted to book rooms at the Grand Gateway Hotel, only to be turned away because of their ethnicity. The incident sparked protests in Rapid City and drew condemnations from city officials and tribal leaders across the state.

The suit was filed in 2022 as a class-action civil rights challenge to the hotel’s policy and practices. The case was delayed when the company filed for bankruptcy in September 2024. The head of the company, Connie Uhre, died in September, a development that added another layer of complexity to the litigation. The plaintiffs argued that denying service to Native Americans violated federal anti-discrimination laws and the Constitution’s protections against unequal treatment in public accommodations. In its defense, the company claimed the actions were isolated incidents tied to security concerns and did not amount to a policy of exclusion. The jury’s decision, however, found that discrimination occurred and that the hotel bears liability for it.

Earlier, in November 2023, the United States Department of Justice entered into a consent decree with Uhre and the hotel, requiring a public apology and a four-year ban from managing the establishment. The decree reflected federal enforcement of civil rights commitments and the government’s effort to remedy discriminatory practices. The bankrupted corporate structure and the death of a key executive did not erase the legal responsibility laid out in the consent decree, though they did shape ongoing enforcement and enforcement timelines. The Associated Press, which covered the case, noted that the consent decree remained a landmark pledge to address wrongdoing in a high-profile local establishment.

In the verdict announced Friday, the jury also ruled in favor of Retsel on a countersuit against NDN Collective, finding that the group had acted as a nuisance in its protests against the hotel and awarding the company $812. The conflicting outcomes reflect the court’s effort to balance civil rights protections with rights of protest and public advocacy. The NDN Collective, for its part, framed the award as a symbolic victory—an acknowledgment of wrongdoing and a public record of discrimination—rather than a monetary windfall. Wizipan Garriott, the organization’s president and an enrolled member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, said after the verdict, “This was never about money. We sued for one dollar,” underscoring the broader objective of documenting and challenging racism.

Rapid City, known as the gateway to Mount Rushmore, has long wrestled with racial tensions. Census data show that a meaningful share of the city’s population identifies as American Indian or Alaska Native; estimates place that group at about 8% of roughly 80,000 residents. The hotel controversy and subsequent legal action have intensified scrutiny of how Native Americans are treated in public accommodations in the region. The case adds to a broader national conversation about discrimination, accountability, and the responsibilities of business owners to ensure equal access to services regardless of race or ethnicity.

The outcome does not resolve all questions surrounding the Grand Gateway Hotel, its ownership, or its leadership, but it does establish a court-administered record of discriminatory conduct and a framework for how such conduct may be addressed through civil remedies. The plaintiffs and advocacy groups say the case serves as a warning to other businesses that exclusion based on ethnicity can carry significant legal costs and reputational damage. Opponents of the hotel’s stance argue that the ruling reinforces the need for vigilant enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and for continued attention to the lived experiences of Indigenous communities in the region. The legal process continues in various capacities as the parties determine next steps, including potential appeals or further action to ensure compliance with the consent decree and civil rights protections.