In re Henderson
301 Kan. 412
| Kan. | 2015Background
- Judge Timothy H. Henderson, Eighteenth Judicial District (Sedgwick County), was the subject of a three-count formal complaint alleging misconduct under Canons 1 and 2 of the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct. A Commission hearing panel found the allegations proven by clear and convincing evidence.
- Count I: Multiple female attorneys and staff testified that Henderson made repeated sexual, demeaning, and harassing comments over several years (examples: sexual jokes, comments about pregnancies, remarks implying sexual relations, and repeated references to "tension"). Victims feared reporting because of his rank and political connections. The panel found Henderson’s denials not credible.
- Count II: Henderson sent an email from his personal account to DCF officials criticizing attorney Martin Bauer (invoking sexual/political stereotypes) and thereby influenced Bauer’s removal from the DCF appointment list; the email also constituted an ex parte communication about a pending or impending matter without notice to opposing counsel.
- Count III: Henderson repeatedly contacted a Wichita Board of Education member (with whom he worked professionally) to seek help obtaining or advancing an employment position for his wife, which the panel found was an improper use of judicial prestige.
- The hearing panel recommended public censure. The Kansas Supreme Court adopted the panel’s findings, concluded Henderson violated Rules 1.2 and 1.3 of Canon 1 and Rules 2.2, 2.3, and 2.9 of Canon 2, and imposed a 90-day unpaid suspension, mandatory training, a two-year supervisory restriction, and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Henderson’s repeated sexual comments to female attorneys/staff violated judicial conduct rules (bias/harassment) | Commission: comments were pervasive, created hostile environment, manifested sex-based harassment and bias, violating Canon 1.2 and Canon 2.3 | Henderson: characterized remarks as "off-color humor," denied or minimized allegations; claimed comments were innocent or case-related | Court held conduct violated Rule 1.2 and Rule 2.3 (bias/harassment); panel credibility findings adopted |
| Whether Henderson’s email criticizing attorney Martin Bauer constituted impermissible bias and ex parte communication | Commission: email used negative stereotypes, appealed to DCF bias, influenced removal and was an ex parte contact about pending/impending matter, violating Canon 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.9 | Henderson: admitted mistaken facts and poor judgment but disputed significance; contended views were personal | Court held email showed prejudice and improper mixing of personal views with judicial role; violated Rules 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.9 |
| Whether Henderson improperly used judicial office to seek employment advantage for his wife | Commission: repeated requests to a school board member sought preferential treatment, lending prestige of office and violating Canon 1.2 and 1.3 | Henderson: said inquiry was limited to KPERS rollover and not intended to influence | Court found use of position to advance spouse’s employment violated Rules 1.2 and 1.3; respondent’s explanations not credible |
| Appropriate discipline for the misconduct | Commission panel recommended public censure (examiner had urged removal); Commission relied on misconduct extent, nature, lack of acceptance | Henderson did not file exceptions and declined to seek further review on facts; argued against harsher sanction | Court imposed stronger sanction than panel: 90-day unpaid suspension, mandated harassment and employment-law training, two-year restriction on supervising district employees, publication and costs |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Rome, 218 Kan. 198 (1975) (standard on proof in judicial discipline matters)
- In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498 (2009) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708 (2008) (discussion of clear-and-convincing standard)
- In re Robertson, 280 Kan. 266 (2005) (standards and purposes of judicial discipline; factors for disposition)
- In re Platt, 269 Kan. 509 (2000) (court’s authority to accept, modify, or reject commission recommendations)
- In re Alvord, 252 Kan. 705 (1993) (mandate for heightened sensitivity in the judicial workplace)
- Labra v. Mid-Plains Constr., Inc., 32 Kan. App. 2d 821 (2004) (sexual-harassment standards in employment law; relevance to hostile work environment analysis)