When Your Mother Commits Textbook Discrimination: A Business Ethics Nightmare
By Michael Kelman Portney
The Phone Call That Changed Everything
The conversation started like many others with my mother, Abby Kelman-Portney, owner of Nickel Nat's Casino in Great Falls, Montana. But what she told me that day would crystallize everything I'd been piecing together about my family's decades-long pattern of corruption and ethical bankruptcy.
"I'm being sued for disability discrimination," she said, her voice carrying that familiar tone of aggrieved victimhood I'd heard so many times before. "This woman, Rebecca Clark, is claiming I discriminated against her because of her disability. Can you believe it?"
As she laid out the details of the case, I felt a sinking sensation in my stomach—not because I was shocked by the allegations, but because I immediately recognized what she had done. This wasn't a gray area. This wasn't a complex legal question requiring nuanced analysis. This was textbook discrimination, the kind of case they literally use in first-week business school ethics courses to teach students what NOT to do.
"Mom," I said, trying to keep my voice level, "you can't do that. They teach you that in your first week of business undergrad. This is basic employment law."
Her response? Defensive justifications. Blame-shifting. The familiar Kelman family playbook of refusing accountability.
But this wasn't just about one discrimination case. This was about a pattern of behavior that connected directly to the massive estate fraud case I was building against her and other family members. The same moral bankruptcy that allowed her to discriminate against a disabled employee was the same moral bankruptcy that allowed her to defraud her own father's estate, abuse vulnerable elders, and corrupt Montana's legal system.
This is the story of that case, what it reveals about the Kelman family's methods, and why it matters far beyond one wronged employee in Great Falls, Montana.
Business Ethics 101: What They Actually Teach You
To understand why Abby's conduct was so egregiously wrong, you need to understand that employment discrimination—particularly disability discrimination—is literally one of the first topics covered in any undergraduate business ethics or management course.
I took these courses. Every business major takes these courses. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and equivalent state laws are foundational topics that professors hammer home from day one, because the consequences of violating them are severe and the legal standards are clear.
Here's what you learn in Week 1 of any basic business course:
The ADA Basics
The Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) and similar state laws prohibit employers from:
Discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities
Failing to provide reasonable accommodations for known disabilities
Retaliating against employees who request accommodations
Creating hostile work environments based on disability status
A "reasonable accommodation" is any modification to a job, work environment, or usual way of doing things that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of their job.
Common examples include:
Modified work schedules
Adjusted break times
Ergonomic workstations
Modified equipment
Reassignment to vacant positions
Time off for medical treatment
The standard is simple: If an employee has a documented disability and requests an accommodation that doesn't create "undue hardship" for the employer (a very high bar), the employer must provide it. Period.
Failure to do so is discrimination. It's not complicated. It's not ambiguous. It's black letter law that every business owner must follow.
Why They Teach This First
Professors lead with disability discrimination for good reasons:
1. It's legally clear - The standards are well-established with decades of case law 2. It's morally obvious - Discriminating against disabled people is universally recognized as wrong 3. It's financially devastating - Discrimination cases can result in massive damages, including punitive damages 4. It's common - Many small business owners make these mistakes out of ignorance or callousness 5. It's easily prevented - Simply following the law and showing basic human decency avoids these cases
The subtext of every business ethics course is: "If you can't get disability accommodation right, you have no business running a business."
The Rebecca Clark Case: A Textbook Violation
When my mother described what happened with Rebecca Clark, I immediately recognized it as a case study in what NOT to do. Based on the Montana Human Rights Bureau investigation and the emails I later obtained, here's what happened:
The Timeline
1. Rebecca Clark was employed at Nickel Nat's Casino
Working in some capacity at my mother's establishment
Presumably performing her duties adequately
2. Rebecca had a documented disability
The Montana Human Rights Bureau investigation confirmed this
The nature of the disability required workplace accommodations
3. Rebecca requested accommodations or disclosed her disability
As is her right under Montana and federal law
This is where things went wrong
4. My mother's response was allegedly discriminatory
Rather than working with Rebecca to provide reasonable accommodations
My mother's actions created conditions that led to Rebecca's termination or constructive discharge
The specifics were damning enough that a state investigator found cause to believe discrimination occurred
5. The Montana Human Rights Bureau Investigation
Rebecca filed a formal complaint: Case HRB 0230188
An investigator reviewed all evidence
The investigator issued a Final Investigative Report
Finding: Cause to believe unlawful discrimination occurred
This is a serious finding. State Human Rights Bureau investigators don't reach "cause to believe" conclusions lightly. They review documentary evidence, interview witnesses, assess credibility, and apply well-established legal standards. When an investigator concludes that discrimination likely occurred, it means the evidence is strong enough to warrant a formal hearing.
What Made This Textbook Discrimination
From what I learned about the case, several elements made this a classic discrimination scenario:
1. Documented disability - Rebecca had medical documentation of her condition 2. Request for accommodation - Rebecca sought modifications to help her perform her job 3. Employer refusal - Rather than engaging in the required "interactive process" to find reasonable accommodations, my mother apparently refused or retaliated 4. Adverse employment action - Rebecca suffered negative consequences (termination or constructive discharge) 5. Causal connection - The adverse action followed the accommodation request
This is the exact pattern they show you in business school as "How to Get Sued for Discrimination 101."
My Immediate Reaction: “You Can't Do That"
When my mother finished describing the situation, my response was immediate and unequivocal: "Mom, you can't do that. They literally teach you this in the first week of business undergrad."
I wasn't being glib. I wasn't exaggerating. I was stating a simple fact: what she described was so clearly discriminatory that it serves as a teaching example of illegal conduct.
My business education had covered this exact scenario:
Scenario from Business Ethics Course
Professor: "An employee with a documented disability requests a reasonable accommodation—perhaps modified break schedules, ergonomic equipment, or adjusted duties. What does the employer do?"
Correct Answer: "Engage in an interactive process with the employee, review medical documentation, assess whether the accommodation creates undue hardship (it almost never does), and provide the accommodation."
Wrong Answer: "Refuse the accommodation, question whether the employee is 'really' disabled, retaliate against the employee for requesting accommodations, or create conditions that force the employee to quit."
Professor: "What happens if the employer chooses the wrong answer?"
Class: "They get sued, they lose, they pay damages, and they're used as a cautionary tale in next year's business ethics course."
My mother had chosen the wrong answer. And she didn't seem to understand—or care—that what she'd done was both illegal and morally indefensible.
Steve Potts: The Enabler
What made this situation even more disturbing was the role of Steve Potts, the family's longtime attorney. When I later obtained emails about the Rebecca Clark case, I saw exactly how Potts handled the situation—and it perfectly illustrated his decades-long pattern of enabling Kelman family misconduct.
The Manipulation Email
On September 18, 2023, Potts sent my mother an email about the Human Rights Bureau investigation. Rather than advising her to take responsibility, settle the case, and reform her practices, Potts engaged in textbook manipulation:
What Potts wrote: "I received this about an hour ago. The investigator concludes that Nickel Nat's discriminated against Becky. That doesn't mean that it happened, just that the investigator, who will have no further authority in this matter, concluded that she thinks there was discrimination."
Translation: "A state official with expertise in discrimination law reviewed all the evidence and concluded you broke the law—but we can probably make this go away."
What Potts wrote: "I can quickly think of some evidence that contradicts what the investigator is saying... I think once a person such as this investigator makes up her mind, it no longer matters to her whether she fairly weighs all of the evidence."
Translation: "The investigator is biased, and we can attack her credibility instead of addressing the substance of what you did."
What Potts wrote: "With that said, this kind of thing really makes you wonder. You are so good to your employees, and now you have one who is taking advantage of you. It's very difficult to deal with. Don't blame yourself or let this get to you. It's part of doing business in America. Pardon the French, but businesses have to put up with a lot of shit."
Translation: "You're the victim here. This disabled employee who you discriminated against is the problem. You did nothing wrong. Feel sorry for yourself, not her."
This email is a masterclass in manipulation:
Ego stroking ("You are so good to your employees")
Victim framing ("Someone is taking advantage of you")
Authority undermining ("The investigator is biased")
Accountability avoidance ("Don't blame yourself")
Moral relativism ("It's part of doing business")
What an Ethical Attorney Would Have Written
Here's what Potts SHOULD have written if he had any professional integrity:
"Abby, the Montana Human Rights Bureau investigator has found cause to believe discrimination occurred. This is a serious finding based on thorough investigation. We need to take this seriously.
Looking at the evidence, the investigator's conclusion appears well-supported. You have exposure here, both legally and reputationally.
I strongly recommend we settle this case quickly and fairly. Ms. Clark's demands are reasonable given the circumstances. Fighting this will be expensive, and we're likely to lose at hearing.
More importantly, we should review your employment practices to ensure this doesn't happen again. Disability discrimination is illegal, and you need proper policies and training.
Let's discuss settlement terms and how to improve your compliance going forward."
That's what an ethical attorney says to a client who has clearly violated the law. But Steve Potts isn't an ethical attorney—he's an enabler of Kelman family misconduct, and has been for over 30 years.
The Pattern of Enablement
The Rebecca Clark case wasn't Potts' first discrimination defense. In his email, he referenced another case: "The case is in approximately the same posture that the Filipino woman's case against Bobo's was in when we settled it a few years ago."
Translation: Potts had previously defended another discrimination case that also resulted in settlement. This wasn't an isolated mistake—this was a pattern of Potts defending indefensible conduct and settling discrimination cases for his clients.
The Potts Method Across Decades
Looking at Potts' career, a clear pattern emerges:
2007: Montana Supreme Court Sanctions
Potts faced professional sanctions from the Montana Supreme Court
Rather than face accountability, Zollie Kelman (my grandfather) "pulled strings" with Montana Supreme Court Justice Gene Daly
Potts got a "free pass"
Pattern: Corruption instead of accountability
2010s: "Filipino Woman's Case Against Bobo's"
Potts defended another discrimination case
Case settled (victim paid off)
No reform, no accountability
Pattern: Settlement instead of justice
2023: Rebecca Clark Case
Human Rights Bureau found discrimination
Potts manipulates client to avoid accountability
Attacks investigator's credibility
Pattern: Manipulation instead of reform
2013-Present: Estate Fraud
Potts helps Kelman family defraud my aunts estate
Potts facilitates will destruction
Potts enables elder abuse
Pattern: Crime instead of legal advice
This is Steve Potts' business model: help wealthy clients avoid accountability through manipulation, corruption, and legal maneuvering. Whether it's escaping professional sanctions, defending discrimination, or facilitating estate fraud, the method is the same.
Why This Matters Beyond One Case
The Rebecca Clark discrimination case might seem like a side issue to the larger estate fraud case I'm pursuing against the Kelman family. But it's actually central to understanding how the Kelman family operates and why Montana's legal system cannot be trusted to hold them accountable.
It Proves Character
In legal proceedings, "character evidence" is often inadmissible—you generally can't introduce evidence of a person's bad character to prove they acted badly in a specific instance. But there are exceptions, and this case hits several of them.
The Rebecca Clark case shows:
1. Pattern of lawlessness - My mother doesn't believe laws apply to her
2. Disregard for vulnerable people - Whether disabled employees or elderly parents
3. Reliance on Potts to avoid accountability - Same attorney, same tactics
4. Moral bankruptcy - No shame, no reform, only victimhood
The same character traits that allowed her to discriminate against a disabled employee are the same traits that allowed her to defraud her father's estate. This isn't different behavior—it's the same behavior applied in different contexts.
It Proves Potts' Method
For my RICO case against the Kelman family and Steve Potts, the Rebecca Clark case is gold. It shows:
1. Potts' manipulation tactics - We have the actual emails showing how he operates
2. Potts' pattern across cases - Multiple discrimination defenses, same methods
3. Potts' corruption of legal process - Attacking investigators, undermining findings
4. Potts' enabling of misconduct - Never advises accountability, always advises evasion
When I argue that Potts helped the Kelman family commit estate fraud, the Rebecca Clark case serves as Exhibit A for "This is how Steve Potts operates in every case."
It Proves Montana System Failure
The discrimination case also demonstrates why Montana cannot be trusted as a venue for justice:
Montana Human Rights Bureau - Found cause to believe discrimination occurred Steve Potts' response - Attack the investigator, manipulate the client, undermine the process Likely outcome - Case settles, no accountability, pattern continues
This is exactly what happened with:
Potts' Montana Supreme Court sanctions (corruption made it go away)
The "Filipino woman" case (settlement made it go away)
My estate fraud case (if Montana courts handle it, corruption will make it go away)
Montana's system is so thoroughly compromised by Kelman family influence and Steve Potts' corruption that justice is structurally impossible.
The Intersection with Autism and Disability Rights
There's a bitter irony in my mother discriminating against a disabled employee, given that I am autistic and have faced my own challenges with disability accommodation throughout my life.
When I later attempted to report federal crimes to the Great Falls Police Department, I explicitly disclosed my autism and requested written accommodations under the ADA. The police response? They violated the ADA by refusing accommodations, gaslighting me about my disability rights, and hanging up on me.
The pattern:
My mother discriminates against disabled employee (Rebecca Clark)
Great Falls police discriminate against disabled citizen (me)
Both enabled/defended by same corrupt legal system
Both refuse accountability when caught
This isn't coincidental. It's systemic. Great Falls, Montana has a culture of disregarding disability rights, enabled by attorneys like Steve Potts who manipulate clients into believing disability discrimination is just "part of doing business."
As someone with autism who has had to advocate fiercely for accommodations throughout my education and career, I understand viscerally what Rebecca Clark experienced. The isolation of knowing you're being discriminated against. The frustration of requesting simple accommodations and being treated like you're asking for special favors. The helplessness of facing an employer who has more resources, more attorneys, and no shame.
Rebecca Clark deserved better. She deserved an employer who followed basic employment law. She deserved an interactive process to find reasonable accommodations. She deserved to keep her job while having her disability needs met.
Instead, she got Abby Kelman-Portney and Steve Potts—a discriminatory employer and a manipulative attorney, both operating in a Montana legal system too corrupt to deliver justice.
The Settlement Demand: What Justice Looks Like
On October 4, 2023, Rebecca Clark's settlement proposal was communicated to Steve Potts:
Financial Demands:
$15,200 for back pay
$12,000 for loans she had to take out (plus interest and fees not included)
$30,000 for emotional distress
$2,000 per month until she secures new employment
Non-Financial Demands:
Positive letter of reference
Cessation of retaliation (she reported being "blackballed" by casino management)
Total initial demand: Approximately $57,200 plus ongoing support
From a business standpoint, this is an entirely reasonable settlement for a discrimination case where a state agency has found cause. The damages are modest compared to what a hearing or trial could award. The ongoing support recognizes that Abby's discrimination had lasting consequences for Rebecca's career and finances.
Any rational business owner, properly advised, would settle this case immediately. The evidence is against you. The investigator found discrimination. The damages are reasonable. Settling avoids:
Expensive hearing costs
Attorney fees
Risk of higher damages at hearing
Negative publicity
Potential punitive damages
Creating precedent for other employees
But Abby Kelman-Portney, advised by Steve Potts, apparently chose to fight rather than settle quickly. Why? Because accountability is foreign to the Kelman family. Because Steve Potts enables their worst impulses. Because Montana's system is so corrupted that they believe they can win any fight, no matter how wrong they are.
What Business Ethics Actually Teaches
Let me return to what you actually learn in undergraduate business courses, because the contrast with my mother's conduct is stark.
The Four Principles of Business Ethics
Most business ethics courses are built around four foundational principles:
1. Justice - Treating people fairly and equitably
2. Rights - Respecting individual rights and dignity
3. Utilitarianism - Creating the greatest good for the greatest number
4. Care - Showing compassion and concern for others' wellbeing
The Rebecca Clark case violates ALL FOUR principles:
Justice - Discriminating against a disabled employee is inherently unjust
Rights - Violating ADA rights is literal rights violation
Utilitarianism - Discrimination harms the employee, employer (legal exposure), other employees (hostile culture), and society (reinforces disability prejudice)
Care - Refusing accommodations shows callous disregard for employee wellbeing
What They Teach About Disability Accommodation
Here's what every business student learns about disability accommodation:
The Business Case:
Accommodated employees are more productive and loyal
Accommodation costs are typically minimal ($500 or less on average)
Avoiding discrimination lawsuits saves massive costs
Inclusive workplaces attract better talent
Corporate reputation benefits from good practices
The Ethical Case:
Disabled people have equal right to employment
Accommodation is about equity, not special treatment
Society benefits when everyone can contribute their talents
Basic human decency demands treating all people with respect
The Legal Case:
ADA compliance is federal law
State equivalents add additional protections
Penalties for discrimination are severe
Case law is well-established and employer-unfavorable
Ignorance is no defense
My mother had access to all of this information. Any competent business attorney (which Steve Potts decidedly is not) would have educated her about these requirements. But she chose discrimination anyway.
The Personal Betrayal
Beyond the legal and ethical dimensions, there's a personal betrayal here that cuts deep.
I am autistic. My mother knows this. She has seen me struggle with accommodation requests throughout my life—in school, in jobs, in social situations. She knows firsthand how challenging it is to navigate a world not designed for neurodivergent people.
And yet, when faced with an employee requesting disability accommodations, she discriminated. She became the employer I had feared encountering. She embodied everything I had fought against.
When I told her "you can't do that," I wasn't just speaking as someone with business training. I was speaking as her disabled son who couldn't believe his mother would do to someone else what would devastate him.
Her response—defensive justifications and victim framing—told me everything I needed to know about who she really is. Not the person who raised me. Not the mother I thought I knew. But someone capable of victimizing vulnerable people and feeling no remorse.
This realization connected directly to my investigation of the estate fraud. If she could discriminate against a disabled employee without shame, she could absolutely defraud her own father's estate. If she could blame the victim for her own misconduct, she could absolutely paint herself as the victim in the estate case. If she could rely on Steve Potts to manipulate her out of accountability, she could absolutely rely on him to facilitate estate fraud.
The Rebecca Clark case was a window into my mother's character—and what I saw explained everything else.
Conclusion: Why This Case Matters
The Rebecca Clark discrimination case might seem like a footnote to the larger story of Kelman family corruption. But it's actually a microcosm of everything that's wrong:
It shows how the Kelman family operates:
Break laws with impunity
Victimize vulnerable people
Refuse accountability
Blame the victims
It shows how Steve Potts enables them:
Manipulate clients emotionally
Attack investigators professionally
Undermine legal processes systemically
Enable misconduct strategically
It shows how Montana's system fails:
Investigations are thorough and find misconduct
But wealthy defendants can fight indefinitely
Attorneys like Potts corrupt the process
Justice is delayed or denied
It shows why federal intervention is necessary:
State system is captured by corrupt actors
Local officials protect local elites
Victims need neutral forum
Only federal courts can provide justice
When I told my mother "you can't do that, they teach you that in your first week of business undergrad," I was stating a simple truth: what she did was so obviously wrong that it's used as a teaching example of how not to run a business.
But obvious wrongness isn't enough to guarantee accountability in Montana. Not when the Kelman family has spent decades corrupting judges. Not when Steve Potts has spent 30 years manipulating legal processes. Not when the entire system is designed to protect the powerful and punish the vulnerable.
Rebecca Clark deserves justice. So do I. So does everyone victimized by the Kelman family's decades-long pattern of corruption.
That's why I'm fighting in federal court. That's why I'm documenting everything. That's why I'm telling these stories publicly.
Because if a disabled employee can't get justice for discrimination, and a disabled grandson can't get justice for estate fraud, then Montana's legal system is fundamentally broken.
And if Montana's system is broken, then federal intervention isn't just appropriate—it's morally required.
They teach you in business school that disability discrimination is wrong. But they don't teach you what to do when the discriminator is your own mother, enabled by a corrupt attorney, protected by a captured legal system.
I'm figuring that out as I go. But I know this much: you don't give up. You don't look away. You don't accept that this is "just how things are."
You document everything. You build your case. You find your allies. And you fight like hell.
Because that's what they should teach in business ethics classes: when you see wrongdoing, you don't just recognize it—you confront it.
Even when the wrongdoer is your family. Especially when the wrongdoer is your family.
That's what ethics actually means.
Michael Kelman Portney is currently pursuing civil rights claims against the Kelman family and their associates. He holds a business degree and has used his education to identify and document systematic corruption in Montana's legal system. He is autistic and advocates for disability rights while fighting for accountability in his family's estate fraud case.
