Paws Down: A reckless bastard’s approach to hospitality
Steve Hurst, Managing Director of Paws Up
Damning language is never unintentional.
But, for a moment, I’d encourage you to zoom out and challenge yourself to see things from a different perspective — that being when it comes to strong language, as this situation warrants, the use of a word that carries such powerful condemnation becomes both essential and necessary.
What we say and how we say it can make all the difference in our everyday lives, as different as they might be from one another — and now I want to invite you to see a glimpse into my world.
And, ultimately, the world of a free-falling-four-star-so-called luxury resort.
Welcome to Paws Up Montana.
Given the natural prestige, the ethereal forest and roaring river invites the world’s wealthiest to enjoy a small slice of the Montanan wilderness — but it can no longer hide the resort’s wickedness.
Steve Hurst is the Managing Director of the operations within the sprawling 37,000 acre ranch just a short drive outside of stunning Missoula, Montana in the southwest corner of the state.
Steve Hurst, Managing Director of Paws Up
Since coming to the team, Mr. Hurst has continued to have success in finding well-qualified, quality talent to bridge the gap in acquiring the best in the industry at what they do.
Unfortunately, he’s equally skilled at burning those same bridges beyond repair.
As we’ll look at together shortly, it is no secret that the reputation of Paws Up fails among locals in legitimately mesmerizing fashion.
Maybe that’s due to the exceptionally well-off clientele. Maybe it’s the invasive and polarizing purchasing of properties from close by close-knit communities, such as Seeley Lake.
But maybe it’s none of those things — maybe it’s Steve.
As any successful business knows, accountability starts from the top down.
When things go wrong, there is an expectation for those in management roles to step in and provide their due diligence to provide solutions to any issues with guests or with staff out of an abundance of common resolve.
Authority structures are going to vary, of course, but ownership of things within their control to change and action when necessary is an inescapable facet of the industry.
Being that it is a business involving working people from all walks of life, being prepared for disagreements — and even moments of conflict — is a required skill, not an acquired taste.
For example, there are several core standards and values that the team is held to like an uncomfortably close shave — and trust me, you feel the razor’s edge under Steve’s thumb.
Of these common denominators, the management team at Paws Up has violated their associates, colleagues, vendors, and the Montana community at large by transgressing in every opportunity for growth.
One of the supposed standards and values that stand out the most to me is that of Open & Thoughtful Communication.
Prior to this situation requiring an article to be written about it, I was under the strong impression that in moments where clarity was necessary it would be provided in a timely manner by the most knowledgable personnel.
This couldn’t have been further from the truth.
With this context in mind, I want to share more about my experience with the resort — and with Steve in particular.
Please understand me when I say this — I don’t come at this lightly.
There are things that the public deserves to be informed about, so please know that only things that I’ve been able to verify credibly will be shared here.
Without further ado, let’s begin.
The Snowball Effect: Kelsey Gates Resigns
In a stunning and unexpected turn of events, Paws Up saw a sudden resignation come through via email to the entire team from the now-former Facilities Office Administrator.
The resignation message was not brief, but rather a well-thought out and diligently written exposition of the internal chaos going on.
It even came with receipts for the who, what, when, and the where — but not the why.
Management failed Kelsey despite multiple attempts to resolve several disturbing issues with her immediate superior, Josh Simonds, who is still actively the Director of Facilities for the company.
These concerns were of a toxic work environment that included harassment that is best characterized as verbal abuse from Simonds.
She reported Josh’s inappropriate behavior to the People & Culture (equivalent to Human Resources) to no avail.
Because nothing was done with her initial approaches to resolution, these issues persisted through to the Director of People & Culture, Jeannine Widmann.
With no action taken whatsoever.
As a result of being ignored, gaslit, and not taken seriously by the people supposedly there to ensure a steady cohesion, Kelsey took her reports directly to Steve as a last resort.
Still, the company chose to not act in defense of an employee who stood her ground even when it seemed like there would be no light at the end of the tunnel.
At the end of her resignation message to the team, she called for more team members to speak up — and her defining bravery caused exactly that to happen next.
The Next Domino Falls: I Ask To Meet With Steve
Within waking hours of Kelsey’s resignation, Steve responds with a message to the entire team. In this message, he assures all of the staff that he is open and willing to listen; yet he minimized Kelsey’s well-documented concerns.
Steve insisted that if there were any further issues to reach out to him directly and that he promised it would be resolved in an efficient and responsible manner.
And then, just as quickly as it came in to our inboxes, Kelsey’s email was permanently removed intentionally by the company.
Initially, this caused a great deal of confusion because it is tell-tale behavior that starkly contradicts the words of Steve’s response.
You do not engage in open or thoughtful behavior when attempts to raise genuine concerns that negatively impact the business morale are met with not just silence — but extermination.
How exactly are employees supposed to feel like they will be well-received, particularly by Steve, but also others in leadership, if Kelsey’s words are no longer available to read outside of screenshot preservation?
It’s because they want you in survival mode.
Nothing in her message violated company policy, neither did it lack a professional tone — and most important of all it violated no federal or state labor laws by bringing these concerns to management.
But as you’ll see, the company’s response did just the opposite — and they did so at every possible junction.
I write an email to the entire team but direct my message to Steve as well as who we all knew as Nadine — the owner of the ranch. In my message, I share and echo the concerns from Kelsey’s message and ask to speak with them both on July 2 about the company culture and their jarring lack of action.
In the meantime, I ask to spend additional time away from my position due to the fostering of the hostile work environment — specifically tied to the fact that Kelsey’s email was deleted.
As you might imagine, mine was also deleted shortly thereafter, and Steve replied one way privately to me on my work email and in a vividly different fashion to the rest of the team in his wider response.
In his message to the team, he responds as if I failed to follow protocol in requesting a meeting with him and assured the team that he’d still (reluctantly) meet with me to address my concerns.
I insist through the entire process that both Steve and Nadine meet with me, as these matters had already gone through Jeannine’s hands and had been dealt with inappropriately.
I also mention that Forbes will be notified of the reckless behavior to ensure future reviews are done in good faith.
Steve responds to this message by trying to change who will be there and inserts Jeannine into attendance while withdrawing Nadine’s name — this did not reflect the meeting I requested, so I denied to meet that way.
Shortly after this, my work email account is locked and I am unable to access those messages naturally, but I have not been fired — no clarifying messages were given to my personal email or personal phone number either.
So I resorted to Microsoft Teams to send a stronger message to Steve.
Within the network used to communicate in Microsoft Teams, there was a way for me to still address the entire resort.
My message was deleted and my Teams account promptly locked within a couple of hours from posting this.
But still no message clarifying another meeting arrangement or clarifying my employment status.
And then, an email from Steve came through that changed everything.
A Bridge Is Burned, Another Is Crossed
Shocked.
Stunned.
But not surprised.
Steve was now emailing me on a personal email account and this time the company’s legal defense was copied to the message.
As you can see for yourself, he finally clarifies that I have not been terminated (yet), and that my access to company resources was rescinded.
Steve cites that this is due to me requesting leave — this is not company policy.
I requested that he cite the policy for blocking company access if a termination has not been rendered — no response.
I ask that Nadine and Steve still be the only two in the meeting with me — no response.
No — instead, Steve attempted to do the only thing he has proven to be good at with others — and that is try to hijack control of the situation.
Despite his repeated attempts to control both the narrative and the details of our meeting, I doubled down by texting his lawyer that there was no such agreement to meet with him.
As you see in the messages, Steve also tries to assert something new — that the location of the meeting will now be at his lawyer’s office — but again, no mention of Nadine whatsoever.
Of course, I decline.
I’m not going to let him sabotage this situation, it would be nothing close to open and thoughtful communication.
So how does one respond to this?
They double down.
After sharing that it was not going to happen, I send a second message demanding my access to the work email be restored and that I was willing to continue this conversation in the appropriate place.
But emailing my personal email with a work matter between work people and a work attorney was inappropriate and I was not willing to play that game.
I added that any further communication to my personal email about this would be charged as harassment and was unwanted, but that he was welcome to push this further through work channels.
Because after all, Steve, I wasn’t fired at that time — right?
I give Steve until the rest of the evening to respond, but he doesn’t. He also still does not restore my work email or work chat accounts.
But I’m still not terminated, so what’s the thoughtful and open way to communicate this to the rest of the team?
I send another mass message to everyone from that personal account, this time going from calling Steve a reckless bastard to a blatant liar — but my email has been blocked.
I try to send from a second email account, but that is also blocked.
So I make a brand new email and send it that way — in this one, I cite the initial charges and the names who are charged at that time.
Almost immediately, this message is also deleted on the company end and I am told that future emails will be treated as harassment (this comes from their attorney) and that I am now terminated, effective immediately.
And then I see Steve’s response to the team.
Steve claims that what I’m alleging is unfounded and goes on to describe the concerns I am raising after Kelsey’s resignation as refuted — he also tries to claim that I refused to meet with him.
What he left out was that was only because he broke his promise to all of us and tried to commandeer instead of correct.
The response from the team? Oh, it’s just begun.
Double Or Nothing
In the most practical sense, going double or nothing doesn’t always work — but where a backbone is required, it is certainly always worth your while.
We’ve now escalated a situation that could’ve been handled swiftly and effectively in private (relatively speaking), but now this has turned into a company-wide assault on speaking out if there’s genuine concern.
“You don’t delete emails — it’s not very open and thoughtful communication of you — that is what reckless bastards do.”
Given that the entire team saw what was going on for what it was, countless individuals have reached out to me and have reported a number of illegal activities, including retaliatory behavior, discrimination based on protected class, and violations of the Montana Human Rights Act.
Not at all the turn I was expecting, but it was time to put my detective hat on and do some digging.
As I stated earlier, only the claims that can be proven are going to be shared here.
This doesn’t invalidate anyone’s experience, but it is important to do things decently and in order and part of that process is being able to prove any claims we make beyond a reasonable doubt.
Because, if we can’t prove it, it’s just as wrong for us to bring accusations forward — and we’re all better than that.
The way that I’ve determined what’s shareable and what needs more time is pretty simple — multiple witnesses that can corroborate their accounts and are willing to come to me in confidence about their respective situation.
Physical proof includes pictures, screenshots, and other valuable evidence that all strengthen our claims — and plenty of that has been provided to me.
Being that these are protected activities under federal law, the identities of these colleagues will not be revealed for their safety and protection.
If I find out further retaliation has taken place as a result of these accounts, further legal action will be pursued past what is already promised — retaliatory behavior from the company means everything up to and including criminal behavior.
Let’s dive in.
Count 1: Suspicious Fertilizer Purchase
“There is no active threat to the property or to national or international interests at this time and this has been reported in accordance with guidelines provided by the Department of Homeland Security.”
Multiple reliable sources have come forward to me citing concerns about the financial behaviors within the business.
Citing a time during a property buyout involving Saudi Arabian nationals, my sources have reported an enormous and suspicious fertilizer transaction involving the company that has been reported to the FBI for further investigation.
The sources also report additional egregious and illegal behavior that will be reported on at a later date pending the involvement of other agencies, as needed, and have also shared with me that they fear for their life by coming forward.
But they find it worthwhile to both come forward anyway, and I commend them deeply for that.
Charged Parties: TBD
Count 2: Discrimination | National Origin
“Any further charges past count 1 are civil charges, not criminal. All charged parties are presumed innocent until determined guilty by the appropriate agency and/or a court of law.”
Multiple sources have also come forward to me with charges of discrimination on the basis of national origin as it relates to housing.
These include violations of one or more of the following provisions:
Federal Fair Housing Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
Montana Code Annotated §49–2–305
Montana Human Rights Act
Age Discrimination Act of 1975
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
One source was denied housing explicitly because of where they are from and another source was charged for rent after being denied an extension based in part on where they are from and was not restored payment in a timely manner.
Charged Parties:
Bekah Cahoon | People & Culture Specialist
Jeannine Widmann | Director of People & Culture
John Slack | Director of Lodging
Steve Hurst | Managing Director
Count 3: Discrimination | Age, Gender
“Any further charges past count 1 are civil charges, not criminal. All charged parties are presumed innocent until determined guilty by the appropriate agency and/or a court of law.”
Multiple sources have come forward with discrimination charges on the basis of both age and gender, citing retaliatory behavior for speaking up on concerns in the workplace relating to workload, scheduling, and poor treatment from their director and manager due to these protected characteristics.
One source came forward to me about retaliation they experienced after asking for a reduced schedule. This retaliation included gossip, false relay of information from that meeting by that manager to the directors of the company, and specifically bullying them into tendering a resignation.
A second source came forward to me about retaliation by their director after they brought to the director’s attention that what was being asked of them (related to moving large amounts of luggage for a guest within a certain timeframe) was physically impossible due to limitations related to their protected characteristics.
The response of the director was sexist in nature and was a direct attack on protected characteristics.
It also continued to foster a hostile work environment.
Charged Parties
Nicole Philp | Front Desk Manager
John Slack | Director of Lodging
Jeannine Widmann | Director of People & Culture
Steve Hurst | Managing Director
Count 4: Discrimination | Religion
“Any further charges past count 1 are civil charges, not criminal. All charged parties are presumed innocent until determined guilty by the appropriate agency and/or a court of law.”
Multiple sources have come forward with discrimination charges on the basis of religion. During their onboarding processes, it was made clear in both instances about their faith and how it would potentially impact scheduling, among other things.
One source had their requests for Sundays off to attend church honored initially, but had their schedule changed, no longer allowing them to practice core part of their faith.
A second source was retaliated against for sharing their convictions with a colleague in a way that was shared with and known by the company prior to hiring them.
This retaliation included false charges of misconduct as it relates to their employment and specifically an increase in scrutiny pertaining to their ability to perform in their role.
Charged Parties:
John Slack | Director of Lodging
Jeannine Widmann | Director of People & Culture
Steve Hurst | Managing Director
Counter 5: Discrimination | Sex, Gender Identity
“Any further charges past count 1 are civil charges, not criminal. All charged parties are presumed innocent until determined guilty by the appropriate agency and/or a court of law.”
Multiple sources have come forward with charges of discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
The first allegations include that the company was made aware of hate speech within the transportation team, including the use of the word f**got in a derogatory and intentional manner towards a colleague while on company time and company property.
This was reported to People & Culture with no recourse.
Second, a colleague has come forward that a member of management continued an inappropriate conversation about sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity after being repeatedly asked to end the conversation by the colleague and that it was both unwelcome and inappropriate.
Charged Parties
John Slack | Director of Lodging
Jeannine Widmann | Director of People & Culture
Steve Hurst | Managing Director
Count 6: Illegal Retaliation For Protected Activity
As a result of engaging in legally protected activity by notifying the company of my intent to file these charges with the appropriate agency, I was retaliated against and ultimately illegally terminated and will be pursuing further legal action.
The demand will demonstrably and appropriately remedy all undue and illegal behavior by the company, as I also had no write-ups or warnings.
Further, there are even more charges that will be filed against the company in the coming days as the support from the staff has remained both faithful and unwavering in ways I could have never imagined and I continue my investigation.
Hospitality is a hard business, but it doesn’t have to be.
It’s much, much harder — unnecessarily so — when a reckless bastard is left unchecked to run your business into a mess beyond comprehension.
If you are reading this and are an active employee, you have been restricted of your right to file illegal behavior by Steve’s repeated deletion on not just mine or Kelsey’s inquiries, but by the tone he is setting when a meeting is required of him.
My advice is to still provide the best service possible and excel in your job because you are all well above expectations in our industry and no doubt will thrive and flourish wherever you’re planted.
Charged Parties:
John Slack | Director of Lodging
Nicole Philp | Front Desk Manager
Jeannine Widmann | Director of People & Culture
Steve Hurst | Managing Director
Should there be further illegal activity, please do not hesitate to reach out to me and I will ensure that the company is dealt with accordingly and that the right people are held accountable.
The best way to reach me is on my cell — (801)-635–5763 — or via email at legallyrivas@gmail.com.
As always, if there’s anything else that I can do for you, please let me know!
