It sounds like she took the job in order to change the organization's mind about keeping the logo, but the organization was (no surprise) actually interested in changing the tribe's mind, instead. She's suing for "breach of oral contract" and "fraud" as if the organization explicitly told her that she was being hired to reach an agreement on a new logo, which I find hard to believe. I find it easier to believe that she just naively assumed that they'd do what she recommended, in which case she deceived herself. She also feels "used," which is the purpose of employment. She was hired (i.e. used) by the organization to help it achieve its interests, not to help her achieve her own.
As for the sexual assault accusations, it's hard to not be suspicious when they seem secondary to the breach of contract and fraud charges. When the lawsuit appears to be salty in the first place, accusations that seem tacked on should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt, as well.