Wife of Family Court Attorney; Exposes State Bar, DA Child Support, Police, and Family Court Judge!

Wife of Family Court Attorney; Exposes State Bar, DA Child Support, Police, and Family Court Judge!

Clark County Nevada

April 23, 2023


Veterans In Politics International has exposed the criminal, unethical, and violations of Federal and State Laws regarding Family Court since 2016 none-stop. Since our involvement, this topic has garnered much attention.

The behaviors in this article are horrendous, to say the least, and we felt it would be best told by the litigant herself.

Here is her nightmare:

Hello, my name is TARA KELLOGG. I am the ex-wife of ALEX GHIBAUDO ESQ. I filed for divorce, which was finalized on February 1, 2017, after 16 years of marriage. We have one child together, born May 17, 2001. I will now give you a relatively brief summation (infra) to establish the basis/foundation of what has transpired. From there, you can see why I reasonably believe a Federal Lawsuit is warranted against the State of Nevada for egregiously blatant, undeniably intentional, and unimaginable willful violations of my Civil and 14th Amendment due process rights. Further, I have all the evidentiary documents and documentation to prove my powerful FEDERAL CIVIL CASE against the STATE OF NEVADA well beyond a reasonable doubt.

My record keeping is impeccable and thorough, as you will soon find out if/when you need anything related to my following assertions and claims. Now comes my factual timeline and the prima facie elements to prove The State of Nevada’s intentional and willful misconduct towards me. The State’s misconduct has actually and proximately caused my disability damages (actual and punitive). Alternatively, at the very least, the facts below will prove the prima facie case for unthinkable negligence, in which the State owed me a duty, breached that duty, and as such, has actually and proximately caused damages to which I am entitled.

STATE-LICENSED ATTORNEY ALEX GHIBAUDO graduated from law school in 2006 and started his first (failed) law firm in 2008. By August 2009, Ghibaudo was suspended from the practice of law for the following reasons:

 Several acts of (physical, emotional, financial, and psychological) Domestic Violence from 2003 through 2014 (Ghibaudo’s reinstatement).

 Alcoholism.

 Repeated violations of Protective Orders.

 Repeatedly abandoning clients.

 Failing to provide an accounting of client funds.

 Criminal misuse of clients’ IOLTA accounts, past and present).

 Failing to respond to the office of bar counsel after repeated requests regarding multiple grievance files.

 Making several “unprofessional, threatening, and demeaning telephone calls” to other attorneys.

Alex Ghibaudo Misconduct: (A) Foundation and summary:

  1. Judge Lisa Brown was my first Judge. Judge Brown recused herself to avoid the appearance of impropriety because Ghibaudo repeatedly contacted her by email and phone.
  1. Judge T. Arthur Ritchie was appointed the new Judge. I had an opportunity to “spin the wheel” for $500.00 and get a judge better or worse than Ritchie. Attorney Creel and Willick said Judge Ritchie was the best option; “Judge Richie is by the book Ritchie.” I now know that Willick and Creel fed me a lie. They believed I was a big fish and would pay substantial fees, knowing damn well Ritchie would drag out enforcement of my Decree indefinitely.
  1. Judge Ritchie had the simple task of enforcing my divorce decree signed by Judge Lisa Brown.
  1. Throughout 2017-2023, Judge Ritchie has NEVER enforced any provision in my Divorce Decree.
  1. Ritchie despised my divorce decree and had no intention of ever enforcing the decree resulting from the required settlement conference.
  1. In 2019, my attorney of record was Sigal Chattah. During a hearing in 2019, Ritchie threw down my Divorce Decree on his bench while shouting,” This is crap.”
  1. All that was needed from Ritchie was to enforce Judge Brown’s finding of facts and enforce my divorce decree “as is”, “not make up his version of “Ritchie Law instead.”; Hence, this is where all the” judges-attorney’s club” privileges, corruption, blatant bias towards non-attorneys, judicial misconduct, and Ghibaudo misconduct begin and end since no one in power is doing anything to end it, even now. Unfortunately, this same misconduct persists going back eight years.
  1. Refused to require Ghibaudo to produce personal and business tax returns annually to determine child and spousal support per Divorce Decree.



On 3/6/2017–I sought and received a TPO against GHIBAUDO. Ghibaudo and his girlfriend, Elske Shipp, sent illegal, unwelcome, unsolicited pornographic images on my cell phone of the two engaged in sexual intercourse. The text messages lasted 44 minutes.

On 7/18/2017–Trevor Creel Esq. filed a STATE Bar complaint against Ghibaudo. (Trevor Creel’s Bar complaint was systematically dismissed and disposed of)

   Rule 8.3.  Reporting Professional Misconduct.

(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

Hearing on 8/22/2017 

Alex – “Your honor, just like what I put on the record, what I mentioned to you off the record before Court.

Ritchie – What did you say?

Alex – just like what I put on the record, what I mentioned to you off the record before Court.

Ritchie – I don’t want you to make some notion that we had some dialogue before Court.

Ritchie and Alex had dialogue before Court, and I believe they have had several conversations outside of Court. This is highly improper and constitutes extreme judicial misconduct. No other Judge on the “up and up” would ever allow such a private conversation with one party (an attorney, no less) without the other party being present. Since Ritchie allowed as much, this reeks of corruption and strategizing as a co-conspirator with Ghibaudo on exhausting my attorney funds until I drop out.

I believe wholeheartedly that Ghibaudo and Ritchie communicate regularly about this case.

  1. Ritchie knows Ghibaudo’s false allegations before he spews them from his mouth.
  1. Ritchie knows Ghibaudo’s request for unrelated relief (not written in motion) before he requests such.

Hearing on 10/6/17 

  1. Judge Ritchie provides Ghibaudo with tax and business advice while I pay attorney fees to Willick, Creel, and Creel’s paralegal. Alex pays nothing.
  1. Alex continues to lie about his financials disseminated online by me without a single shred of proof.

EVIDENTIARY HEARING-Ritchie avoids the unsettled divorce decree provisions because he refuses to hear them.

Ritchie – “I’m going to do my best to close this thing out.” (a lie, or even worse, could be construed as “closing this thing out” as the functional equivalent of “until Ms. Kellogg’s attorney’s fees are exhausted, and she can’t afford to come back into my courtroom.”

My case is still ongoing 8 years later. Does that seem like “closing this thing out” to you or any reasonable person or Judge?” Hell no.

On November 7, 2017, a JUDGMENT against Ghibaudo was signed by STATE ELECTED Judge T. Arthur Ritchie. Including:

  1. Child Support Arrears.
  1. Medical Insurance Arrears for the minor child.
  1. Family Support Arrears (the Judgment is still unpaid).

2017 – Numerous status checks occur every six days to ensure Ghibaudo paid the MINIMUM amount per the divorce decree, which rarely happens. Continued status checks cost more attorney fees than the minimum support obligation. This was, and still is, Ritchie’s intentional design to financially force me out of further litigation against Alex by completely exhausting my attorney funds to continue.

Not an attorney fee award is in sight from Ritchie (I stopped counting after Ritchie hit one dozen (12) deferred attorney fee requests, even though the relevant statute Ritchie is supposed to follow states that all litigants need to be on equal financial grounds. If not, the litigant with the higher income is statutorily mandated to pay the lesser-earning litigant’s attorney fees. The statutory relevance here is to keep everything equally balanced between the parties (especially when the higher-earning litigant is filing frivolous motions to exhaust the lower-earning litigant’s attorney fees deliberately).

Per the Decree of Divorce, Ghibaudo is to provide his tax returns for 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 to determine child support and alimony amount according to Ghibaudo’s income. Ritchie Never enforced the production of tax returns, Schedule C Profit and Loss statements, DFDF, etc.

To avoid a Writ of Execution, Writ of Garnishment, Alex filed a fraudulent motion indicating that HIS registered agent did not serve him with the documents. Alex’s ridiculous claim is that his registered agent is mine and my family’s 20+ years of friends.

Alex then embellished his initial lie under penalty of perjury (again) with another completely fabricated falsehood (by saying his registered agent would spend Christmas with my family, celebrate birthdays, take trips, etc.). These are All Lies under oath, no less.

Ritchie then unreasonably determined that Alex’s absurd and blatant lies somehow warranted scheduling another expensive evidentiary for which I would have to foot the bill and based on no reasonable grounds. Each time Ritchie forces me to humor Alex’s lies and fabrications in Court, I am the only one forced to pay attorney fees.

Alex, a somehow licensed attorney still, represents himself pro bono.

Further, Ritchie never mandates that Alex pay my attorney fees even though it’s the law, which is also required in my divorce decree.

Here, Ritchie set aside two full days in August 2021. Alex repeatedly lied, perjured himself, and could not remember his numerous lies; thus, he constantly got tripped up by my attorney, Jonathan Nelson.

On Day 2 of Evidentiary Heating, Alex requested a continuance. The request was denied. At the end of day two, Ritchie ruled that “the beef” between Alex and his Registered Agent was between them. This was a fact Ritchie knew or should have known before even scheduling such a ridiculous evidentiary hearing premised on such a frivolous motion filed by his buddy Alex.

Thus, I prevailed (as Ritchie couldn’t appear that blatantly corrupt, especially if there were a chance his bias toward Alex might be publicized on YouTube, etc).

This is why courtroom transparency is needed, or judicial corruption would continue to be buried under cover of & “sealed case adjudication without cause”).

However, this little “evidentiary hearing stunt” pulled off by Ghibaudo and Ritchie, in cahoots with one another, still cost me thousands of dollars to defend the ridiculousness orchestrated by both Ritchie and Alex (to drain my attorney fee resources continually).

Further, on the same day, Ghibaudo changed his LLC (Limited Liability Company filed with the Secretary of State), making it impossible to collect the 2017 judgment.

Judge Ritchie knew about this, allowed it illegally, and did nothing to remedy Guibaudo’s wrong. Once again, Ritchie is exhausting more of my attorney fees ($250K to date and counting) on an unnecessary evidentiary hearing causing me even more financial hardship (without ever awarding attorney fees) that no other reasonable judge would have ever entertained over Ghibaudo choosing his Registered Agent. (a registered agent, my family nor I had any input or influence over Ghibaudo’s decision to do such). Unbelievable.

GHIBAUDO’S suspension lasted for five years, and he was reinstated in 2014, followed by a two-year (“stay out of trouble”) probationary period. However, that was a seemingly impossible State Bar requirement. GHIBAUDO could not escape trouble and was arrested on January 1, 2016.

Further, GHIBAUDO did not report his arrest to the Nevada State Bar as per the terms of his suspension.

Hearing 2/26/18 – Trevor Creel files a request for a lien against me for non-payment of $61,000, although I paid them well over $50,000.00. Ghibaudo is a working attorney with a substantial income. He refuses to pay support, judgments, etc. In contrast, I was a full-time housewife and mother to our ill daughter. My level of education at the time of separation was high school, and I received an AA degree in 2017. Ghibaudo was present at the hearing. He wants Judge Ritchie to confirm that he is in no way responsible for the attorney fees from the Willick Law Group, and Ritchie assures him that this is my debt.

On 3/19/2018—Alex Ghibaudo was held in Contempt of STATE Court for failure to pay court-ordered support in January, February, and March 2018.

On 9/13/2018— Sigal Chattah submitted a STATE Bar complaint against Alex Ghibaudo Esq., for threats and harassment. (The complaint was systematically dismissed and disposed of).

On 10/31/2018-Ghibaudo unilaterally and illegally stopped paying all court-ordered support per the established and controlling divorce decree on October 30, 2018.

On 3/20/2019— Tara Kellogg and Nicole Ghibaudo were granted a TPO against Alex Ghibaudo for threats to cause physical harm, harassment, and stalking.

On 6/27/2019—ELSKE SHIPP (under GHIBAUDO’S direction again) hacked into my USAA account to receive unauthorized information on my two children and me. I received a text message from USAA stating: “You were recently added to the personal profile of ELSKE SHIPP. If you have any questions, please call 800-292-8995.” I discovered that SHIPP accessed the account I opened in 2014, and SHIPP wrongfully added herself as a fiancé. I immediately worked with USAA to secure my and my children’s personal information to circumvent any identity theft by Shipp (who was arrested and/or convicted of various crimes herself independently of GHIBAUDO).

On 8/9/2019—I, Tara Kellogg, submitted a STATE Bar complaint against Alex Ghibaudo

  1. Failure to pay court-ordered support obligations.
  1. Failure to disclose a conflict of interest between Ghibaudo and Hearing Master, Jennifer Henry assigned to cases adjudicated Complainainant’s Request for Temporary Protective Orders, all in violation of Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 3.5 (a-b): 8.4 c-(f):

On 8/26/2019—I received a letter from Phillip J. Pattee (STATE Bar Counsel) at the Nevada State Bar. The letter concluded, “No further action will be taken in this matter.”

On 9/5/2019—I, Tara Kellogg, sent STATE Chief Justice Mark Gibbons a certified letter with supporting documentation about Nevada State Bar Counsel Phillip J. Pattee. “I believe the investigatory and disciplinary process is being abused or ignored. I also believe that Bar Counsel Phillip J. Pattee is biased, lacking objectivity when reviewing complaints about Alex Ghibaudo.”

On September 25, 2019—the STATE Supreme Court of Nevada Re: Your Correspondence Dated September 5, 2019

“Your letter dated September 5, 2019, along with exhibits, has been forwarded to me for a response. As there is pending litigation in this matter. Chief Justice Gibbons is unable to intervene or advise you in this matter. Your letter and exhibits will be forwarded to the Executive Director of the Nevada State Bar for consideration. Sincerely Elizabeth A. Brown Esq. Clerk of Court.” (I never heard from the Nevada State Bar).

On 9/26/2019–Criminal Conspiracy by Ghibaudo, Elske Shipp, and Heather Bekish.

  1. The inception of the first Fake Facebook page, “Hekela Koa” developed and devoted to disparaging, harassing, and stalking me (Tara) incessantly.
  1. In total Ghibaudo, Shipp, and Bekish developed 7 Fake Facebook pages.

On 10/2019–SHIPP (“high as a kite”) contacted my then family law attorney Sigal Chattah and demanded that my bank statements be directly sent to Shipp’s email address without authority or authorization whatsoever. SHIPP has no reason, right, or basis for requesting my bank statements.

On 10/28/2019–I contacted the STATE-appointed Henderson Police Department because of the relentless and continued online harassment from SHIPP/GHIBAUDO. Upon information and belief, the Henderson Police Department contacted SHIPP and advised SHIPP to stop engaging in this behavior and misconduct. However, SHIPP flouted authority and continued engaging in said behavior. SHIPP was empowered and emboldened by GHIBAUDO as a STATE licensed officer of the court.

Ghibaudo continued telling SHIPP “It was “okay” to carry on with the harassment. Thereafter, the Henderson Police Department inexplicably closed the case within minutes after learning GHIBAUDO was a STATE licensed attorney. Ghibaudo threatened to sue them (calling the officers “pigs” in the process).

On 10/30/2019–GHIBAUDO and SHIPP unlawfully and without permission attempted to access my Capital One account. I received a message from Capital One that my account had been locked out due to too many failed attempts. Henderson Police Department Incident Report No. LHP191025000778.

AGAIN, the Henderson Police Department did Nothing because they were intimidated by a STATE licensed attorney (Ghibaudo) threatening to sue them.

On 10/30/2019–GHIBAUDO and SHIPP attempted to unlawfully and without permission access my PayPal account from an unknown mobile device.

November 2019—Conference call with STATE elected District Attorney Steven Wolfson, Suzi Trubi, Assistant Director of Child Support Enforcement, my dad, Dr. Joseph Kellogg, and me.

The conference call addressed Alex Ghibaudo’s failure to pay Spousal Support since October 30, 2018, and child support arrearages and Child Support Enforcement’s ultimate failure to enforce.

In addition, we further discussed NRS 201.020. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, this conference call resulted in nothing of consequence (like virtually everything else at the STATE level whenever my CIVIL OR DUE PROCESS RIGHTS are at issue.

NRS 201.020  Penalties; jurisdiction.

1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, a person who knowingly fails to provide for the support of his or her:

(a) Spouse or former spouse;

(b) Minor child; or

(c) a Child who upon arriving at the age of majority is unable to provide support for himself or herself because of infirmity, incompetency, or other legal disability that was contracted before the child reached the age of majority, Ê as ordered by a court, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

2.  A person who violates the provisions of subsection 1 is guilty of a category C felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130 if:

(a) The person’s arrearages for nonpayment of the child support or spousal support ordered by a court total $10,000 or more and have accrued over any period since the date that a court first ordered the defendant to provide for such support; or

(b) It is a second or subsequent violation of subsection 1 or an offense committed in another jurisdiction that, if committed in this State, would be a violation of subsection 1, and the person’s arrearages for nonpayment of the child support or spousal support ordered by a court total $5,000 or more and have accrued over any period since the date that a court first ordered the defendant to provide for such support.

3.  A prosecution for a violation of subsection 1 may be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in any county in which:

(a) A court has issued a valid order for the defendant to pay child support or spousal support;

(b) The defendant resides;

(c) The custodial parent or custodian of the child for whom the defendant owes child support resides;

(d) The spouse or former spouse to whom the defendant owes spousal support resides; or

(e) The child for whom the defendant owes child support resides.

[1:170:1923; NCL § 10516]—(NRS A 1965, 1440; 1967, 474; 1969, 271; 1979, 1284; 1983, 1878; 1995, 1196; 1999, 1208, 3568; 2001, 278).

In direct reference to this statute supra, GHIBAUDO OWES ME OVER $300,000.00 IN SUPPORT ARREAGES, which are still unpaid, yet the STATE-elected D.A. Wolfson never found such egregious criminal violations by STATE-licensed GHIBAUDO “necessary enough” to pursue, past or present.

Instead, Woflson nonchalantly stated, “He did not want to get involved in pursuing this blatant CRIME.” This is coming from the D.A. which has a statutory and elected duty (that was breached) to pursue willful and egregious crimes against victims, including but not limited to families and especially children!

Then Nevada State Bar renews Alex Ghibaudo’s law license annually. The State Bar knows full well that he does not pay his court-ordered support obligation, judgments, and attorney fees.

In 2019 and 2020–GHIBAUDO, SHIPP, and a new player/agent in their sick and twisted game, one HEATHER BEKISH (Bekish is a disgruntled ex-girlfriend of my boyfriend), posted a Craigslist ad offering “my” sexual services to strangers. The ad provided my phone number. I received numerous terrifying, unwanted, unsolicited, and lewd phone calls and voice messages (I have one saved voicemail for evidentiary purposes).

In 2019-2020, BEKISH, SHIPP, and GHIBAUDO publicly shared my medical information, bank statements, bank account numbers, and Deposition of Tara Kellogg. My private information was posted online, in emails, and in text messages. The trio disseminated my information in my sealed Family Law case. I repeatedly requested STATE elected Judge Ritchie safeguard my protected information just as Ritchie would a juvenile. He ignored my request, just as he had done for years (multiple breaches of his duty as a STATE elected family law Judge).

As discussed supra, and on other occasions, SHIPP, GHIBAUDO, and BEKISH have engaged in an online and in-person campaign of harassment, defamation, abuse, stalking, and other atrocious conduct towards me, as explicitly discussed above and below.

SHIPP, BEKISH, and GHIBAUDO admitted to their goal and purpose of accomplishing the above-discussed objectives and admitted the same in writing and orally.

On 4/3/2020–I received a letter from my health insurance provider (Aetna). The letter said that Alex Ghibaudo from the Law Firm G Law contacted Aetna to inform them of his power of attorney status. This assertion by GHIBAUDO to Aetna was a blatant lie and completely misrepresentative and illegal since I gave GHIBAUDO no such authorization to say or do so.

On 8/2/2020—An email to STATE-elected Steven Wolfson outlining Ghibaudo’s failure to pay child support, court-ordered spousal support payments, and Larry Bertsch’s Forensic Accounting report. The report concludes Ghibaudo’s misuse of two (2) IOLTA accounts and refusal to provide documents, statements, and tax returns.

On 8/9/2020—Phil Pattee (Nevada STATE Bar, Bar Counsel) emailed my attorney, Chris Reade.

Please note that the email is dated one month before the court granted Ghibaudo’s Law License Suspension for failure to pay Court-Ordered Child Support.

The email explicitly states as follows verbatim (an unimaginable STATE-authored admission of an intentional and willful breach of duty):

“I got a call from Phil Pattee at the State Bar Office of Bar Counsel. He noted that they had received the information on child support from the CCDA and would be doing Nothing further with it. He said that the District Attorney has no authority to suspend a law license and knows it has no authority to suspend a law license. He said as he chuckles when he gets another complaint against Alex, he puts it in his 3” thick file on Alex. He said this one would likewise be put in Alex’s file but Nothing further would be done at this time.”

On 8/12/2020—STATE sponsored Child Support Enforcement-District Attorney’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Suspend Alex Ghibaudo’s Law License to Practice Law in the State Of Nevada is granted. (Yet, Ghibaudo did not pay, nor was his Law License suspended per order).

Here, another breach of duty is shown by this agency since such an ordered suspension is specifically what their job is (enforcing payment or imposing the appropriate penalties).

On 8/21/2020— An email from STATE elect Steven Wolfson to me confirming that Child Support Enforcement is pursuing the suspension of Alex Ghibaudo’s Law License for failure to pay child support.

ORDER September 17, 2020: 

The Court finds that Tara is willfully underemployed to maximize her spousal support claim, that the income should be imputed to her for the period between October 2017- the present (8 months after the Divorce decree was signed) (The NRS code states that you cannot retroactively decrease support). The Court can appropriately calculate the NET (the divorce decree states that all calculations are determined GROSS, not NET) support that is due during this time and that amount based on the evidence presented is $2,000 a month.

The Court further finds that Alex is employed as an attorney who incorporated his law firm with the Nevada Secretary of State about six months after the settlement conference on December 19, 2016. (Per the settlement agreement, all assets will remain community property until divorce).

The Court further finds the duration of the marriage, which was 13 years. (WRONG 15 years, 6 months) YOU DUMB FUCK. SIX YEARS ON MY CASE, AND YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW THE YEARS OF MARRIAGE!

The Court further Finds that the Court considered the earning capacity, age, and health of each spouse. Alex has an earning capacity of $140,000 per year; Tara’s earning capacity is $24,000 per year.

The Court Further Finds that the Court considers the standard of living during the marriage and finds the marriage, both parties had financial and personal issues. So that is not a compelling consideration in this case. (Ghibaudo had personal and financial issues; hence, drugs, alcohol, hookers, strip joints, and supporting random girlfriends).

In 1999 Alex moved into my 3,000 sq ft house with a pool valued at $650,000.00 and drove my $60,000 car to begin his education at CSN. (Alex had nothing.) He pissed everything away). Please see my attached deed. I stupidly added Ghibaudo to the deed to my house.

The Court Further Finds that the Court considered the career before marriage of the spouse who received alimony. Here, Tara has been taking college courses for years and has received an Associate Degree. She is currently seeking a bachelor’s degree and made effort in that regard.

I started school at CSN in 2013 while being the sole caretaker of our minor child and housewife.

I was unable to continue school and graduate from UNLV. However, Alex strategically stopped paying support on October 30, 2018. He knew full well that I would soon receive my Bachelor’s Degree. Ghibaudo does not want me to obtain an education and has made this known throughout our marriage.

The Court Further Finds that the Court considers the award of property granted in the Decree.

There was not much property granted in the Decree of Divorce to either party. (DUH! Alex stole over $700,000.00 from me. He took out a second and third mortgage on my house to afford his deplorable, vile lifestyle while living in San Francisco and attending Law School. My money provided “UNKNOWINGLY” his animalistic lifestyle behind my back.

Additionally, Alex sold my $80,000.00 vehicle and $10,000 engagement ring. He sold all the furnishings in my house and borrowed over $100,000.00 from my parents without repayment. My home foreclosed in 2009.

The Court has continuing jurisdiction to modify unaccrued periodic alimony payments outlined in a Decree of Divorce upon showing changed circumstances. NRS 125.150(8) (Ritchie imputed income retroactively back to 2017).

The only change in circumstances is the substantial increase in Ghibaudo’s income. Alex’s income increasing x 3.

The Court may consider, among other factors, a party’s earning capacity, not just income, when determining a fair and equitable alimony award. NRS 125.150.

Ghibaudo and I participated in a settlement conference and agreed on all terms, At any time any party could petition the Court for a divorce.


  1. My disability was never mentioned in the settlement conference and agreement.
  1. My disability is NOT mentioned in Divorce Decree. Why? Because it’s nobody’s business.
  1. Judge Ritchie used the required Financial Disclosure Form (FDF) questionnaire against me. The FDF asks two questions under penalty of perjury.
  2. Do you have a disability? Yes
  1. If yes, please provide supporting documentation. I provided the same documentation supplied to the College of Southern Nevada (CSN) and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) required by the Disability Resource Center (DRC).

On 8/21/2020— An email from STATE elect Steven Wolfson to me confirming that Child Support Enforcement is pursuing the suspension of Alex Ghibaudo’s Law License for failure to pay child support.

  1. Judge Ritchie never enforced any provision in my Divorce Decree in six (6) years.
  1. Refused to enforce child support
  1. Refused to enforce health insurance for Ghibaudo’s daughter, EVER.
  1. Refused to enforce Marital Debt.

On 9/26/2020—Shipp, Ghibaudo, and Bekish created a Facebook account (“Hekela Koa”). The newly aligned trio created seven (7) Facebook accounts for inflicting emotional and mental distress upon me through relentless cyberstalking, cyberbullying, harassment, and other unlawful, actionable acts on a criminal and civil level. AGAIN, the Henderson Police Department did Nothing to protect or secure my 14th Amendment due process or any of my civil rights. Multiple breaches of their express duty to the public to protect and serve ALL victims, not just selectively.

On 10/19/2020–Cease and Desist letter was mailed to Elske Shipp and Heather Bekish from Chris Reade Esq. The letter went ignored and the harassment continued.

On 1/11/2021— Chris Reade Esq. filed TPO against Alex Ghibaudo for threats against Tara Kellogg and family members.

  1. Ghibaudo said he would physically, financially, and personally “fuck Ms. Kellogg up” and would make her wish that she were dead.
  1. Ghibaudo doubled down on his threats and said he would take out his frustrations on Ms. Kellogg physically and her family, whom Mr. Ghibaudo alleges was behind Ms. Kellogg’s litigation.
  1. Ghibaudo said he would retract the physical threats if Ms. Kellogg agreed to “specific settlement terms in good faith. This physical threat by Ghibaudo, in exchange for a compromised civil settlement, is unequivocally clear, blatant, and illegal extortion, in which the County D.A. and various STATE courts of competent jurisdiction deliberately turned yet another blind eye to STATE-LICENSED Ghibaudo’s criminal conduct.

On 1/11/2021—An Email from STATE appointed Assistant Director Suzi Truby (Child Support Enforcement) to my Attorney Chris Reade informing Mr. Reade that Assistant District Attorney Adam Hughes will not suspend Alex Ghibaudo’s Law License for failure to pay child support after all.

Note: STATE attorney Hughes had no discretion or authority to make such a unilateral move outside his scope of authority. This decision came after Hughes spoke with STATE Bar counsel Phil Pattee, and was told by Pattee that Hughes had no such authority to suspend GHIBAUDO’s law license even though the STATE statute clearly says otherwise.

On 1/19/2021—I drove to the Henderson Police Station at 225 E Sunset Rd. The previous police reports made at my home were fruitless. As such, the “trio’s” threats and harassment increased exponentially because the Henderson Police Department enabled their misconduct towards me and essentially encouraged it by their non-action.

Upon request, I provided a detailed police report, including violations of the protective order issued on 1/11/2021. Police Officer Hendrickson “conveniently,” said the TPO does not mention/cover social media. Therefore, the threats, harassment, and stalking continued and increased substantially, even though clear and unambiguous NEVADA STATE STATUTES are in place that say otherwise.

Hearing February 3, 2021: 

Attorney Chris Reade filed a motion for an order to show cause, attorney fees, and costs.

Ghibaudo failed to pay 39 months of court-ordered support out of 40 months. Monies paid to enforce divorce decree $300,000.00, Ritchie – Denied.

Hearing June 2, 2021- Clark County Family Court Judge Arthur RITCHIE THREATENS ME!! 

Ritchie – that should Plaintiff attempt to enforce this Court’s prior orders or her awards of support Plaintiff would be acting at Plaintiff’s own risk.

On 7/16/2021–Email correspondence between Chris Reade Esq., and Alex Ghibaudo Esq., and cc’d to my dad, Dr. Joseph Kellogg.

The emails said as follows:

  1. “If your client refuses this reasonable request (continuance), I will seek sanctions and attorney fees. When Ritchie denies it because he’s covering your client, because he’s white like you all are, I will appeal it. (Alex calls Ritchie Racist).

“If you think this is a fucking game I’ll play and mine will be to drain those ghoulish parents of hers (Tara’s) of every fucking penny he may have…you listening Joe? (Tara Kellogg’s father, Dr. Joseph Kellogg). Do you want to reconsider or not? Respond.

  1. “By the way, tomorrow every single unflattering picture of hers (Tara) is going up and I will tell the story publicly. It’s all coming out now. Fuck this, I will not be extorted by a POS.”
  1. “Just keep getting that retainer refreshed because this won’t end anytime soon so long as your old POS daughter keeps playing her stupid fucking games old man.

Just wait till I tell the world what a piece of shit you and your family are.

  1. Chris Reade Esq. emailed me the following:
  1. “He is high as a kite, But Tara, if you don’t think this email accusing Ritchie of racism is not an exhibit, you are grossly mistaken. WTH was he thinking?
  1. “He also indicated that he intends to vexatiously drain your parents. That’s an abuse of process that he just admitted to.”
  1. Email dated August 12, 2021. In the email from Ghibaudo to Shipp (Ghibaudo’s girlfriend) and cc’d to Bekish (the disgruntled ex-girlfriend of my boyfriend Mike A/K/A Hoyt Torrey).
  1. The email directs Shipp and Bekish to create another fake Facebook account or send disparaging, deplorable, disgusting flyers to my neighbors sent anonymously.

The intent is: “I aim to force this bitch to kill herself.” 

  1. To date, Ghibaudo, Shipp, and Bekish have created seven (7) fake Facebook accounts to stalk, harass and threaten me to “the point I kill myself” (as intended by the email I provided you from Alex and cc’d Elske Shipp (Ghibaudo’s girlfriend) and Heather Bekish (the disgruntled ex-girlfriend of my boyfriend Mike A/K/A Hoyt Torrey).
  1. Ghibaudo’s threats throughout the years must be taken seriously. Ghibaudo has a long string of severe DV arrests and convictions against me and his current girlfriend.
  1. In 2020, Ghibaudo disseminated my bank statements and deposition to his minions and many others.
  1. Ghibaudo makes physical threats directly to my 80-year-old dad, Dr. Joseph Kellogg.
  1. Ghibaudo threatens my dad with his intent to continue litigation indefinitely. (Emails in my possession).
  1. TPO sought and received by attorney Chris Reade against Ghibaudo. (See TPO in my possession).
  1. Phil Pattee enables Alex (Read the Chris email about the 3-inch binder BS).
  1. The State Bar runs unchecked in Clark County (DA Wolfson does not want to “get involved”).
  1. Ghibaudo and Shipp commit perjury (See perjury folder in my possession). Discuss the videotaped lying testimony by Alex and Shipp vs. the phone records exposing those lies.

Here, the courts, DA, or state Bar have done zero. about it.

On August 12, 2021, an email authored by GHIBAUDO (on his business letterhead, no less) to SHIPP and BEKISH read verbatim in its entirety as follows:

“Heather, are you opposed to starting another Facebook page about them both? I can feed you all sorts of information and shield and protect you from any kind of liability. My goal is to utterly destroy both of them. I’m not fucking around with these pieces of shit anymore. One idea I like is to print out pictures of the two of them together, attach them to his disbarment doc, and distribute them to her entire neighborhood; all, of them. I’m willing to mail it if we cannot get in.


SHIPP, BEKISH, and GHIBAUDO admitted to their goal and purpose of accomplishing the above-discussed objectives and admitted the same in writing and orally.

On 8/16/2021— STATE-backed judge Ritchie required an unprecedented, improper, unfounded, abnormal, and unheard-of two-day Evidentiary Hearing on a Writ of Execution/Writ of Garnishment.

On August 17, 2021, Ghibaudo changed his LLC to defraud me in violation of NRS 89.022.

From 2018 through 10/2021, I, Tara Kellogg, filed twenty-eight (28) police reports for continued threats, harassment, and stalking with the STATE approved Henderson Police Department.

  1. ALL police reports were closed without investigation (blatant breach of duty).
  1. Seven police reports were left blank.
  1. Eight Police reports had basic information incorrect, such as my name.
  1. On 10/03/2022, Officer Eric Bohn from the Henderson Police Officer reopened my case(s) and forwarded it to the Cybercrimes Unit.
  1. In March 2023, Detective Vargason from the Henderson Police Department (Cybercrimes Unit) contacted me three (3) months after I provided:
  • The flash drive included threats, harassment, relentless stalking, grotesque, deplorable, vile, repugnant photos of me, including my name: Tara R. Kellogg, Tara Rae, Tara Rae Kellogg
  • My sworn declaration/affidavit.
  1. Detective Vargason dared to inquire how long it would take to view the flash drive (as if he did not want to be unduly burdened from doing the exact job he is paid very well for).
  1. I was incredibly insulted by Detective Vargason and “matter of factly” assured him that the length of time it might take him to do his job would be substantially less time than it took me to put all of the “nightmarish documentation together for him (unpaid no less).
  1. I contacted Detective Vargason approximately one (1) month later for an update. Not surprisingly and conveniently, Detective Vargason “did not see any crimes, harassment, stalking, threats, etc”. Although, the last email I received from Ghibaudo specifically stated, “I aim for this Bitch to kill herself.” There is Nothing to see here, I guess (unbelievable).

On November 23, 2021– Ghibaudo was exactly three years (36) months behind in his court-ordered-support obligation.

Jonathan (JK) Nelson said, Ms. Kellogg is continually prejudiced by your failure to act.

Ritchie set an Order to Show Cause for February 2022. Why?? Because Jonathan Nelson was spot on!

Michancy Cramer said in Open Court, “Tara can go sleeping around with half of California. 

Ritchie said NOTHING!!

Ghibaudo held in contempt. However, Ritchie emphatically refused to implement a $500.00 fine for each month Ghibaudo failed to pay support or incarcerate Ghibaudo for failure to pay Court ordered support for a whopping 39 months.

Instead, Ritchie held me in contempt for sharing hearing videos (currently on appeal).

Ghibaudo disseminating my bank statements and other financial docs, deposition, etc., from the evidentiary hearing from May 2019-September 2020. This can be proven.

Ritchie decreased my alimony retroactively and substantially. Ritchie declared that I do not have a disability. However, my disability was never mentioned in the settlement conference or the Divorce Decree. Why? Because it’s nobody’s damn business.

When did this Family Court Judge become a medical doctor?

Ritchie was seeking any reason to decrease my alimony by any means. I stupidly answered honestly on an FDF, “Do you have a disability? Under the Penalty of Perjury, I answered yes.

(Although, it’s nobody’s fucking business) The question further asked me to provide documentation. Thus, I logged into My UNLV account and provided the same documentation I had provided the Disability Resource Center (DRC) at UNLV.

The letter from my psychiatrist and the document from the Social Security Administration. I have the evidence to support this as well.

Ritchie discriminates against people with disabilities, and he is sexist and racist.

Judge Arthur Ritchie, needs immediate removal from the bench before continuing the mountains of destruction, and he MUST be stopped.

On 1/27/2022—Tara Kellogg was ordered to be present for a Deposition at Ghibaudo’s office by Ghibaudo.

Such an order was inherently dangerous since it put me at severe risk of having to be in the same room with an individual who had been arrested and/or convicted more than 30 times for assaulting me in the past.

Including two acts of strangulation. The STATE discovery commissioner ruled against me and my legitimate safety concerns in favor of being unreasonably placed in danger at Ghibaudo’s office. What is so outrageous here is that this was during the height of COVID when such depositions were routinely conducted by” bluejeans” for far less.

Thus, I employed a retired Metro Police Officer to accompany me during the “ridiculous” seven hours Ghibaudo kept the deposition going for his amusement (like a cat taunting a defenseless mouse).

Additionally, Ghibaudo refused to allow the former Metro officer in his office. Ghibudo said, “I hate fucking pigs.” I was terrified the entire time and was legitimately convinced he would kidnap or kill me based on his past actions and current physical threats.

In 2022, GHIBAUDO and SHIPP signed me up for many services and contact lists without my consent. For example, SHIPP signed me up for a job search service that resulted in several unwanted calls and voice messages. SHIPP has no right, privilege, or reason to be concerned about my unemployment status or personal life.

On 2/11/2022–GHIBAUDO and SHIPP created a Facebook account under the name of Lisa Jakobsen (“Jakobsen Account”). The Jakobsen account was created solely to harass, threaten, insult, intimidate, ridicule, defame, stalk, and other legally impermissible behavior toward me.

SHIPP has admitted to being the creator of the Jakobsen Account, and GHIBAUDO admitted to several threatening, harassing, stalking posts (I have the text messages confirming such for evidence provided by Heather Bekish in a lapse of Judgment on her part).

I made countless calls to the Henderson Police Department and numerous Police reports that fell on deaf ears yet again. Shocker. I am now a prisoner in my own home because no one at the STATE LEVEL is doing an iota of what they are required to do by law to protect and serve me as a daily, never-ending victim of this trio.

On 2/12/2022—Again I filed a police report for threats and harassment. Please note that I had a previous appointment with my physician on Friday, March 24, 2023. The appointment was to renew my Disabled Placard. My doctor determined that I will no longer require renewal of the disabled placard. My physician determined that I was “completely disabled.”

The Henderson Police Department is one of the NEVADA STATE agencies that have actually and proximately caused by Federally recognized SSA disability and damages (in which compensatory and punitive damages are highly warranted in Federal Court). The police failed to do a simple investigation. Had the Henderson Police Department (an agent of the STATE OF NEVADA) done a sliver of work between 2018-2023, my future would look drastically different for the better.

However, they chose to do NOTHING instead but ensure the aforementioned “trio” continued to haunt me daily with their antics and with unfettered discretion.

The Henderson Police Department would rather have me employ an expensive PI and do an investigation on my own than do their actual job.

However, “but for” the Henderson Police Department’s willful, intentional (or at the bare minimum, wanton and reckless negligence) over the years, I would not be disabled (ACTUAL DAMAGES) at this point in my life. I would not be diagnosed with PTSD. I would not be depressed every hour of every day, I would not have debilitating anxiety and a life not worth living, as my psychiatrist astutely diagnosed).

Further, I have now developed a reasonable fear toward STATE law enforcement and elected officials based solely on the prolonged mistreatment and injustice I have been forced to endure needlessly for over eight years. I have had to learn “the hard way” that these institutions seemingly are not in place to protect me in the least, especially if a STATE licensed attorney is the criminal hell-bent on seeing me ultimately “DEAD.” 

Click on this Powerful interview:

Tara Kellogg victim of Family Court Torture by Nevada Attorney Alex Ghibaudo & Judge Arthur Ritchie



Kristi Gilley on the Run to Protect Her Children from Severe Abuse, Seized and Jailed

Lives Endangered by Family Court Corruption The Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts is raising funds here for the legal defense of this protective parent by federal civil rights litigation, to speak for her and all others enduring family court corruption and annihilation of children. This is a case that epitomizes the family […]

The post Kristi Gilley on the Run to Protect Her Children from Severe Abuse, Seized and Jailed first appeared on Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts.


Family Court Genocide: Advisory To Judges & Officers Of The Court Known To Be Engaged In Family Annihilation

When I write to the court, I write as an advisory and directive to raise issues of their civil rights violations, as well as their inaccurate and incompetent use of psychiatric evaluation as a means of introducing hearsay in the legal process, then seeking to avoid introduction of hard evidence and violating due process. I […]

The post Family Court Genocide: Advisory To Judges & Officers Of The Court Known To Be Engaged In Family Annihilation first appeared on Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts.


Family Court Genocide: Advisory To Judges & Officers Of The Court Known To Be Engaged In Family Annihilation (Part 1)

When I write to the court, I write as an advisory and directive to raise issues of their civil rights violations, as well as their inaccurate and incompetent use of psychiatric evaluation as a means of introducing hearsay in the legal process, then seeking to avoid introduction of hard evidence and violating due process. I […]

The post Family Court Genocide: Advisory To Judges & Officers Of The Court Known To Be Engaged In Family Annihilation (Part 1) first appeared on Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts.


Defense of the FCVFC against False Allegations

To the Board of Trustees of the State Bar of California: The Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts a whistleblower 501(c)3 nonprofit that advocates for, supports, and engages litigation for protective parents in family court. We seek prosecution regarding violations of their due process and civil rights and that of their vulnerable children […]

The post Defense of the FCVFC against False Allegations first appeared on Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts.


If a Federal Courthouse is not Accessible to a Person With a Disability, What Remedies do They Have?

Today’s blog entry is a case sent to me by Prof. Leonard Sandler, a clinical law professor at the University of Iowa. The case of the day is Wilds v. Akhi LLC decided on July 29, 2022 by Magistrate Judge Jones of the Northern District of Florida. It deals with the question of what happens when a person with a service animal shows up at the federal courthouse with his service animal not on a leash. Plaintiff alleged that the animal was under his control and could not be on a leash in order to best compensate for his disability as he has blackouts. The security agency refused to let him in the federal courthouse. So, he sues alleging violation of the ADA and state law claims. As usual, the blog entry is divided into categories and they are: Federal Buildings Are Exempt from the ADA and a Federal Courthouse Is Not a Place of Public Accommodation; While Plaintiff Has a Constitutional Right of Access to the Courts, He Cannot Enforce That Right against the Defendants under §1983 or under Bivens; While No Private Cause of Action Exists under Florida Statute §1413.08(3), Plaintiff Does Have the Ability to Sue for Damages for Violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act; and Thoughts/Takeaways. Of course, the reader is free to focus on any or all of the categories.




Federal Buildings Are Exempt from the ADA and a Federal Courthouse Is Not a Place of Public Accommodation


  1. Only one Federal District Ct. has addressed the question of whether a federal courthouse constitutes a place of public accommodation under title III of the ADA. That court held that a federal courthouse was not a public accommodation.
  2. The lack of case law on whether a federal courthouse constitutes a public accommodation under title III of the ADA is likely because federal governmental buildings are generally exempt from the ADA.
  3. Federal buildings are governed by the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968.
  4. The Architectural Barriers Act does not provide a private right of action and courts have refused to imply one.
  5. An aggrieved person under the Architectural Barriers Act may file a complaint with the U.S. Access Board regarding any alleged Architectural Barriers Act violation.
  6. Courts allowing a private cause of action under the Architectural Barriers Act, have insisted that a litigant must first exhaust his administrative remedies with the Architectural Barriers Board before filing suit in federal court. Accordingly, a remedy the plaintiff has is to file a complaint with the Access Board.



While Plaintiff Has a Constitutional Right of Access to the Courts, He Cannot Enforce That Right against the Defendants under §1983 or under Bivens


  1. The defendants, the security companies providing security services to this particular federal court, are not state actors.
  2. The United States Supreme Court has refused to extend Bivens to private entities.
  3. Defendants are federal contractors and §1983 does not provide a cause of action against a federal official or contractor.
  4. By its own terms, §1983 only applies to state actors acting under color of state law and not to federal actors acting under color of federal law.
  5. A Bivens claim is available when a federal actor violates a plaintiff’s federal rights while acting under color of federal law. However, the United States Supreme Court has refused to extend Bivens liability to private entities that contract with the federal government.
  6. Since the purpose of Bivens is to deter individual federal officers from committing constitutional violations, inferring a constitutional tort remedy against a private entity is not possible.
  7. The defendants are private security companies providing security services for U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in the Gainesville division under a federal contract.
  8. The Supreme Court has said that merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful, does not constitute state or federal action and is excluded from §1983 or Bivens.



While No Private Cause of Action Exists under Florida Statute §413.08(3), Plaintiff Does Have the Ability to Sue for Damages for Violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act


  1. Florida courts have refused to recognize a private right of action under §413.08 of the Florida statutes.
  2. Plaintiff may seek relief under Florida statute §760.01.
  3. The Florida Civil Rights Act provides a mechanism to obtain private relief and damages under §413.08 because §760.07 states that any violation of any Florida statute making discrimination unlawful gives rise to a cause of action for damages.
  4. Since plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court construes a state law claims for violations of §413.08(3) to arise under the Florida Civil Rights Act.
  5. Whether plaintiff can bring a Florida Civil Rights Act claim against defendants denying him access to a federal building is a question that should be decided by Florida courts and not the federal court because plaintiff has no federal claim.
  6. A court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claim when the court is dismissing all federal causes of action.
  7. In a footnote, the court noted that even if a federal courthouse was somehow considered to be a place of public accommodation under title III, the particular defendants sued in this case do not own, lease, or operate it. Instead, federal courthouses are owned and operated by the Gen. Services Administration of the United States government. Also, very few courts have considered whether security officers can be characterized as owners, lessors, or operators under title III of the ADA and those that did decided in the negative.
  8. In another footnote, the court noted that the Supreme Court recognize a constitutional right of access to the courts arising under the 14th amendment in the case of Tennessee v. Lane. Florida courts have recognized a number of affirmative obligation flowing from that principle, including: the duty to waive filing fees and in certain family law and criminal cases; the duty to provide transcript to criminal defendants seeking review of their conviction; and the duty to provide counsel to certain criminal defendants. Each of those cases make clear that ordinary considerations of cost and convenience alone cannot justify a State’s failure to provide individuals with meaningful right of access to the courts.
  9. In another footnote, the court notes that the Florida Civil Rights Act has exhaustion requirements.




  1. I cannot see how federal courthouses can be a place of public accommodation.
  2. Courts are split on whether the Architectural Barriers Act allows for a private cause of action. At a minimum, a person would need to exhaust administrative remedies first before filing such a suit, assuming such a suit flies in the first place.
  3. Bivens and §1983 are of no help to a plaintiff faced with a similar situation.
  4. State law is something plaintiffs lawyers should look to when dealing with disability discrimination matters. They sometimes go further than federal law or are applied more broadly.
  5. About a month after this decision, the U.S. District Court accepted the magistrate’s report without objections from the parties.
  6. The General Services Administration is an executive agency. So, one wonders why a plaintiff when faced with this situation would not pursue a claim under §504 of the Rehabilitation Act. See for example, Bartell v. Grifols Shared Servs. NA, 1:21CV953 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 15, 2022)-holding that the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA get interpreted the same way when it comes to service animals.
  7. The court did direct the clerk to conduct a reasonable investigation, whatever that means, to see whether plaintiff’s request that he be permitted to enter the courthouse building with his service dog unleashed could be accommodated.


Extending Title VII to Federal Judicial Employees | Aliza Shatzman

Judicial clerkships have traditionally served an important role in helping attorneys transition into practice and learn from experienced judges and practitioners. But the power imbalance between judge and clerk and the cloak of confidentiality surrounding judicial proceedings sometimes puts clerks in bad situations. Further, employment laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 do not apply to the judicial branch. Aliza Shatzman, Co-Founder and President of The Legal Accountability


Can I File an EEOC Claim if I’m Not a Member of a Protected Class?

If you’re not a member of a protected class, can you still file an EEOC claim?

The short answer is yes, but there are some things you should know first.


In this article, we’ll discuss what protected classes are and when you can file a claim even if you aren’t being targeted because of your protected class. We’ll also cover some basics on EEOC claims, including retaliation.


What is an EEOC Claim, and Who Can File One?

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, is a federal agency charged with enforcing anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. One of the ways it does this is by handling discrimination complaints (or claims) filed by employees.

If an employee is a member of a protected class and believes they have been a victim of discrimination, they can file an EEOC claim or a TWC claim with the Texas Workforce Commission – Civil Rights Division, which oversees the same issues as the EEOC.

The EEOC will then attempt to resolve the issue through mediation between the employer and employee, investigate the claim and, if it finds evidence of discrimination, concludes its process with a dismissal notice for the employee. The notice will likely include a Right to Sue, enabling the employee to file a lawsuit. If the case cannot be resolved through this process, the EEOC may file a lawsuit on behalf of the employee.


What Qualifies as a Protected Class?

It is illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or employee on the basis of certain protected characteristics that are beyond a person’s control.

These characteristics, known as protected classes, are defined by law and include (but are not limited to):

  • Race,
  • Color,
  • Religion,
  • Sex,
  • National origin,
  • Disability,
  • Genetic information, and
  • Age (40 or older).

While the list of protected classes varies from state to state, the above classes are protected throughout the United States. Protected class status is important because it gives employees and applicants the right to file an EEOC/TWC claim if they believe they have been the victim of discrimination. For example, an employee who is not hired for a job because of their race could file an EEOC claim alleging racial discrimination.

Most of the laws governing discrimination protect all members of a protected class. For example, a person of any religion could potentially bring a claim of religious discrimination. However, disability discrimination and age discrimination laws only protect certain members of those protected classes. A person without a disability cannot bring a discrimination claim for not being disabled, nor can a person under 40 bring a claim for age discrimination.

While protected class status is an important factor in determining whether someone can file an EEOC claim, it is not the only factor. The EEOC and TWC also consider whether the employer has a policy or practice that disproportionately affects employees in a protected class. For example, if an employer has a policy of only hiring recent college graduates, this may disproportionately affect older workers and could be found to be discriminatory. Such policies can indicate a pattern of discriminatory behavior and lend credence to an EEOC/TWC complaint.


Some EEOC Claims are Available to Everyone, Not Just Members of a Protected Class

The EEOC plays a vital role in ensuring that all workers are treated fairly, not just those of certain protected classes. Some of the claims that are available to everyone are those that involve whistleblowers and retaliation.

It’s worth noting that whistleblowers and retaliation claims are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they often go hand-in-hand. Let’s take a closer look at how these claims work.


A whistleblower is an employee who reports discrimination, harassment, or other unlawful behavior that has occurred in the workplace. Whistleblower complaints can be filed by any employee, regardless of protected class status. For example, a Black employee that witnesses harassment against her Hispanic coworkers can file a whistleblower complaint on behalf of those coworkers, even if the Black employee is not experiencing discrimination herself.

There are several reasons an employee, even one who is not a member of a protected class, might want to file a whistleblower complaint. First, filing a complaint and reporting the unlawful behavior can help stop the discriminatory behavior from continuing. It can also provide relief for the victim of discrimination, and it can send the message to other employers and employees that discrimination will not be tolerated in the workplace. In some cases, whistleblowers may even be eligible for financial compensation.


Workplace retaliation occurs when an employer takes negative action against an employee who engaged in a protected activity, such as:

  • Filing a discrimination complaint
  • Asking for an accommodation for a disability, pregnancy, or religious reason
  • Whistleblowing
  • Filing a complaint that overtime has not been paid
  • Taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
  • Refusing to participate in an illegal act
  • Participating in an EEOC investigation

Common forms of retaliation include termination, demotion, and denial of benefits.

Any person can file a retaliation claim if their employer took adverse action against them for filing a complaint, reporting unlawful activity, or participating in an EEOC investigation. Not only can filing a retaliation claim discourage future instances of retaliation, but it may also result in compensation (or other relief) for the claimant.


Jackson Spencer Can Help With Filing a EEOC Claim

If you have been a victim of workplace retaliation or want to blow the whistle on unlawful conduct, it is important to speak with an experienced employment law attorney.

At our employee rights law firm, our experienced attorneys can assess your case and may help you determine the best course of action. And if you decide to move forward, we’ll stand by your side as zealous advocates to ensure you have the best chance of success.

Contact us today for a free consultation.

The post Can I File an EEOC Claim if I’m Not a Member of a Protected Class? appeared first on Jackson Spencer Law.


What Williams v Kincaid tells us about interpreting the ADA

Williams v Kincaid, 2022 WL 3364824 (4th Cir. August 16, 2022) is not the first case to consider gender dysphoria as a disability, and marks the second time the Fourth Circuit has considered the difference between gender identity and gender dysphoria.¹ However, as a circuit court opinion holding that gender dysphoria can be a disability covered by the ADA it has special prominence, not only because of its possible effect on individuals suffering from gender dysphoria, but also because of what it teaches about interpreting the ADA in light of changing science and technology and the possible need for updating the ADA’s definitions in light of those changes.

The ADA has a specific exclusion from the definition of disability for homosexuality and bi-sexuality (42 U.S.C. §12211(a) and for “transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders” (42 U.S.C. §12211(b)(1)). Although these were treated differently in the statute, both exclusions appear to be based on the fear that employers and others would not be able to exclude LGBTQ people based on issues of sexuality.²

To understand the importance of Williams v. Kincaid as a guide to interpreting the ADA requires a little history. When the ADA was introduced in 1989 the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders III treated anything but traditional straight gender identity or behavior as a form of mental illness. The DSM is the standard reference for mental disorders, and because the ADA definition of disability begins with “a physical or mental disorder” it was not hard to see that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual and other people might claim that the ADA prohibited discrimination against them based on questions of sexuality. This was morally abhorrent to many legislators and so the ADA was written with a specific exclusion from the definition of disability for homosexuality and bi-sexuality (42 U.S.C. §12211(a) and for “transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders” (42 U.S.C. §12211(b)(1)). Although these were treated differently in the statute, both exclusions appear to be based on the fear that employers and others would not be able to exclude LGBTQ people based on issues of sexuality² and a belief that these behaviors represented a moral failing rather than a mental disorder.³ The only issue with the exclusion appeared to be that it might exclude individuals with HIV/AIDS because of the association of that disease with homosexual behavior. The exclusion remained after different legislators pointed out that HIV/AIDS was not limited to homosexuals. What the ADA ended up doing was excluding conditions that were regarded as mental disorders in the scientific community but which most legislators thought were merely moral failings.

The treatment of LGTBQ sexuality as a mental disorder continued in DSM IV, but the current version of the DSM – version 5 – no longer treats questions of sexual identity as a mental disorder. It recognizes instead that “gender dysphoria” can be a mental disorder because individuals whose sexual identity does not match their gender at birth may suffer from severe mental distress as a result. In the thirty years since the ADA was passed science has advanced and the notions about sexual identity current in 1989 are no longer considered to have a scientific basis. Note that this is not an observation about social change. Societal attitudes about LGBTQ individuals have also dramatically changed in the last thirty years, but the DSM understanding of sexual identity is based on science, not social change.

This brings us to the analysis in Williams v. Kincaid. Williams is a transgender woman who had lived for fifteen years as a woman and was shown female on her drivers license. She was diagnosed as having gender dysphoria and received hormone therapy as part of her treatment. When arrested and jailed she was originally treated as a woman, but later transferred to male prisoner housing in the county jail and otherwise treated as a man. She was denied her hormone therapy for at least two weeks and only received it irregularly after that. Not surprisingly she was mocked by male prisoners and suffered at least some abuse from male guards. After her release she sued under the disability discrimination provisions of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Kincaid, the sheriff, defended on the exclusion of transsexuality from the definition of disability under the ADA.

The Fourth Circuit rejected this defense based only on principles of statutory interpretation. In its simplest form the argument went like this:

  • transsexuality as used in the ADA must have been based on the definitions of mental disorders in the DSM III (4) in which it was one of several “gender identity disorders.”
  • “gender dysphoria” was not mentioned as a mental disorder in the DSM III.
  • DSM 5 no longer recognizes gender identity disorders, but does recognize “gender dysphoria” as a mental disorder.
  • therefore Congress could not have intended to exclude gender dysphoria from the definition of disability in the ADA.

In other words, Congress only intended to exclude what it knew to be mental disorders in 1989 and the exclusion in the statute could not be re-written to encompass a newly recognized mental disorder even if that mental disorder arose out of transsexuality. As the Fourth Circuit wrote:

Thus, the ADA excludes from its protection anything falling within the plain meaning of “gender identity disorders,” as that term was understood “at the time of its enactment.” Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1738. But nothing in the ADA, then or now, compels the conclusion that gender dysphoria constitutes a “gender identity disorder” excluded from ADA protection. For these reasons, we agree with Williams that, as a matter of statutory construction, gender dysphoria is not a gender identity disorder.

2022 WL 3364824, at *6 (emphasis added).
This is interesting enough, but does it have broader ramifications in interpreting the ADA? It should. After all, advances in science and technology since 1989 have not been limited to the understanding of mental illness. Courts arguing one way or the other concerning the application of the ADA to websites and internet based applications almost always assert that Congress never thought about the internet when the ADA passed because it was relatively insignificant at the time. The Fourth Circuit approach – what Congress didn’t think about it didn’t include – supports the law in the various circuits that find stand-alone websites are not places of public accommodation.(5)
This approach may also require re-thinking the meaning of phrases like “architectural barriers” or “communication barriers.” Is the definition of an architectural or communication barrier frozen in terms of assistive technologies available in 1989 or will improvements in technology change the way these phrases are understood? The same may become true of technologies that ameliorate a disability. Congress explicitly stated that the ameliorative effects of various physical devices would not be considered in determining whether a physical disability substantially limits a major life activity(6), but there is no similar provision for gene therapy, another technology not available in 1989. There may be a time when some mental or physical disorders are not reasonably considered disabling because of the effectiveness of new therapies that don’t fit the definition of “medication” in the list of things not to be considered when determining whether a disability exists.
The very high profile controversy about websites as public accommodation has prompted efforts at legislative change(7).The decision in Williams v. Kincaid tells us that this may not be the only statutory reform needed. In Williams v. Kincaid the Fourth Circuit was able to bring the ADA in line with modern medical practice because of a change in vocabulary, but that may not always be true. Congress went to a lot of much trouble to specifically exclude the ameliorative effect of different technologies without considering whether those technologies might, in the future, become the equivalent of “ordinary eyeglasses” whose effects can be considered. Courts can only do so much to bring an old law into a new millennium. Congress may need to do some work as well.


¹ See my blog accessdefense.com/?p=5193#more-5193 for a discussion of earlier district court cases, and see Grimm v. Gloucester County Sch. Bd., 972 F.3d 586, 611 (4th Cir. 2020), as amended (Aug. 28, 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2878 (2021) for an earlier discussion of gender dysphoria discrimination.

² In the Congressional Record a poll showing widespread opposition to laws that would forbid discrimination against homosexuals was entered in the record on the same day the first draft of the ADA was presented. (C.R. 101 – May 9, 1989 at pp. 39, 138). The Fourth Circuit certainly viewed the ADA exclusion as evidence of discrimination in Grimm v. Gloucester County Sch. Bd. writing:

First, take historical discrimination. Discrimination against transgender people takes many forms. Like the district court, we provide but a few examples to illustrate the broader picture. See Grimm, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 749 (“[T]here is no doubt that transgender individuals historically have been subjected to discrimination on the basis of their gender identity, including high rates of violence and discrimination in education, employment, housing, and healthcare access.” (collecting cases)). As explained in the Brief of the Medical Amici, being transgender was pathologized for many years. As recently as the DSM-3 and DSM-4, one could receive a diagnosis of “transsexualism” or “gender identity disorder,” “indicat[ing] that the clinical problem was the discordant gender identity.” See John W. Barnhill, Introduction, in DSM-5 Clinical Cases 237–38 (John W. Barnhill ed., 2014). Whereas “homosexuality” was removed from the DSM in 1973, “gender identity disorder” was not removed until the DSM-5 was published in 2013. See Kevin M. Barry et al., A Bare Desire to Harm: Transgender People and the Equal Protection Clause, 57 B.C. L. Rev. 507, 509–10, 517 (2016). What is more, even though being transgender was marked as a mental illness, coverage for transgender persons was excluded from the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) after a floor debate in which two senators referred to these diagnoses as “sexual behavior disorders.” See Barry et al., supra, at 510; see also 42 U.S.C. § 12211(b)(1). The following year, Congress added an identical exclusion to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, “stripping transgender people of civil rights protections they had enjoyed for nearly twenty years.” Barry et al., supra, at 556; see also H.R. Rep. No. 102-973, at 158 (1992).

972 F.3d 586 at 611.

³ I found these in the materials collected at The ADA Law Project

(4) Although it did not survive into the final statute the DSM III was explicitly included in one of the early versions as part of the description of what was excluded from the meaning of disability. www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/house-bill/2273/text?r=7

(5) The Fourth Circuit has not ruled on this issue, but District Courts in the Circuit have held that stand-alone websites are places of public accommodation. The Ninth and EleventhCircuits say that stand-alone websites are not places of public accommodation and the Third and Sixth have excluded non-physical places of business in other contexts. The First, Second and Seventh have suggested in non-website cases they would extend the ADA to definition of public accommodation in ways that include websites. District courts in all but the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have taken varying views of the question.

(6) 42 U.S.C. §12102.

(7) see my blog The Online Accessibility Act of 2020 – does it do what it needs to do?




Healing Cannot Proceed Without an Understanding of Sickness

There is not now nor has there ever been a golden age for children. There are no civil rights for children, no laws to protect them, no authorities, even parents, allowed to authentically, authoritatively speak for children, as children have no rights. Children have always been the first indentured servants. Children were used as workers […]

The post Healing Cannot Proceed Without an Understanding of Sickness first appeared on Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts.