Bureaucracy Fail: WSHRC Experience Paved Way to SCOTUS Case

Examples of comments Haven Wilvich has received since being named in a court case.

The Evergreen Echo

In February of 2020, Haven Wilvich was invited to an event held at Olympus Spa in Lynnwood, WA. The Korean spa is women-only and nude, featuring a large bathhouse-style sauna. Before the event, Wilvich called to ask if she, as a pre-operative Transwoman, would be allowed to attend the all-nude event. Olympus Spa denied Wilvich entry on the basis of her natal genitalia and that her attendance could upset other guests. 

Wilvich, feeling this decision was unreasonable, researched her rights under Washington State law and discovered that the business’s decision to deny her entry was considered discrimination. She then decided to file a complaint against the business by using the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) and their complaint filing system. After submitting the information, an inquiry was conducted, a case was opened, and the WSHRC found that Olympus Spa was being discriminatory. Wilvich was informed of this decision by her WSHRC case worker, and that, she believed, was that. 

“I thought everything was resolved,” Wilvich explained. “[The WSHRC] went through the normal process. I heard back that the spa would change policies in response to that. From my perspective, everything was done. I thought there was resolution and that the concern had been addressed.” 

Wilvich continued about her day-to-day life as a Trans content creator, singer, and founder of a local choir ensemble, STANCE, believing that the matter had been settled. Three years later, in 2023, things quickly changed. 

“I started suddenly getting a bunch of hatemail in my inboxes. Via email, via Facebook messenger, via Instagram messenger. I was suddenly getting spammed with hate and death threats. At first, I could not figure out why there was a sudden uptick.”

As a public figure on social media, Wilvich knew that her information was public and had received hate mail before. But in 2023, Wilvich began receiving horrendous messages en masse. The comments were horrific and unsettling; they ranged from misgendering Wilvich, to accusations that she was a pedophile, to calling for her death or encouraging her suicide. One particularly alarming email read: “The whole world hates you now,” and “You’ll always be a waste of space.” 

“So I searched my name online,” Wilvich detailed, “and discovered that Olympus Spa had filed a lawsuit against the State of Washington and that they had named me in the lawsuit… There were articles about me, pulling information from my public posts—deadnaming me and talking about me as if I was some man trying to access the spa. That’s when I began to investigate what was actually going on.” 

During this investigation, Wilvich found that her name and information, which she believed to be private when she filed her complaint with the WSHRC, had in fact been shared with not only Olympus Spa, but now with the entire world as a part of a case filed against Washington State. The case, Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, had by that point become extremely high profile, as Olympus Spa appealed the original ruling with the intention of going before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Because of the current administration’s attitude towards Transgender and Queer people, the case is garnering a huge amount of press (both good and bad), and every article, video, and online post written about it spreads Wilvich’s private information more and more. 

Haven Wilvich, real live human person.

Courtesy of Haven Wilvich

Wilvich expressed her fear and disappointment. “Having my name brought into the public record because of this case has made me feel extremely unsafe. I have been doxxed because of this and have received physical hate mail to my house.” She explained that she had to increase the security around her home, and that her deadname and other information had been dug up by people across the internet. Still, one of her greatest trepidations was that this case and her information would be used against Trans people across the United States. “I’m worried… that I will be used as an example to override state protections. It would be a shame if my experience would be used as a way to change human rights across the country.” 

Wilvich explained that she had no idea her information would be shared with Olympus Spa or with anyone after creating her complaint with the WSHRC. “There were no disclaimers that I could see that said my name would be released or be part of public record,” she stated. “It was not an obvious part of the process.” 

The WSHRC was, and is, under the Public Records Act (Chapter 42.56 RCW), which states that as part of Washington’s governing body, the Commission’s records are public. Anyone is able to request the information that WSHRC uncovers as part of its investigative processes without reason. The complaint filing form, however, did not overtly state this as part of their process. Using the Wayback Machine reveals how this page would have looked when Wilvich filed her complaint back in 2020. On this page, which shares information about the complaint filing process, there is no information about the Public Records Act. Today, the explainer for complaint filing on the WSHRC website does contain a link to the Public Records Act, but it is not easily noticeable (it is only discovered by selecting ‘more’ and reading ‘04 | Public Disclosure’), and the link directs to the Washington State Legislature archive, where the language of the Act could be confusing for those not well-versed in legislative verbiage. Another notable part of the Public Records Act’s rules is that even if one were to file and ask to remain anonymous as a part of their filing, if the party filed against (or any state or local agency) were to ask to receive the records of the investigation, the WSHRC would be compelled to give it, meaning that even someone who filed anonymously would not actually be allowed to remain anonymous.

Now, Wilvich hopes to protect the privacy of other individuals facing human rights violations. “I believe that victims of human rights violations should be protected,” she told me. “[They should] not have their names disclosed to the entities that harmed them. I would like to see changes in state law to protect victims of human rights violations so that they are protected from public disclosure.” Wilvich also expressed her fear that others who face human rights violations in Washington State would refuse to come forward with their stories after hearing her own. “All of my friends who have seen what I have gone through certainly do not want to report a case to the WSHRC.” 

Wilvich’s community yielded similar sentiments. Lotus TheVibe, a creative director and performer, said, “As a Two-Spirit, Afro-Indigenous woman, I was already hesitant to file a complaint through the WSHRC. I have concerns about whether state systems like this were built to understand and protect people from communities like mine… [Wilvich’s] experiences didn’t create those concerns—it confirmed them.” At the end of her statement, Lotus TheVibe said, “A process existing on paper doesn’t mean people feel safe enough to use it.” 

Lotus’ opinions were echoed by another anonymous member of Wilvich’s community and a recent graduate. When asked about her opinion of the WSHRC after hearing Wilvich’s story, she said, “I do not feel I could trust them to maintain my confidentiality.” This fear had even kept her from filing her own complaint. “A Thai restaurant in the University District refused to serve my girlfriend and I due to our being transgender,” she shared. “I saw no reason to file a complaint, as it would just have made me a target.” 

The distrust in this system, designed to protect the minoritized communities in Washington State, is incredibly important and worrisome, and Wilvich hopes to see a real change. She explained that she hoped the WSHRC would protect the privacy of victims, or at the very least make it clearer that the Commission is under the Public Records Act. As the WSHRC exists now, it is bound by due process and by its own investigative restraints, and no retaliation protections exist unless the complaint is made by an employee against their employer, meaning that the WSHRC cannot offer any reprieve for the hate messages and physical hate mail that Wilvich has received.

Wilvich’s story serves as a cautionary tale and as a jumping off point for meaningful change, as there exists no known alternative to the WSHRC’s complaint filing system. To create potential changes to this system, or to ask about the complaint filing process of the WSHRC, phone and email information are listed on their contact page. 

At this time, Olympus Spa v. Armstrong is awaiting a hearing by SCOTUS.