On Friday, a federal judge ruled that the governor’s decision to remove the former leader of the Kansas Highway Patrol was unjustified, and they must be reinstated to a lower rank.
Former KHP superintendent Mark Bruce has won his lawsuit against Gov. Laura Kelly and members of her administration. U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree ruled in Bruce’s favor after he resigned and filed the lawsuit.
According to Crabtree, the plaintiff has succeeded in his claim of procedural due process against Governor Kelly and Superintendent Smith, with the latter being one of the defendants in the case. The ruling states that the plaintiff is eligible for reinstatement as a Major in the KHP, but will not be receiving enhanced retirement benefits.
As of Friday afternoon, there has been no response from Bruce’s attorneys regarding the request for comment.
According to the governor’s spokesperson, Grace Hoge, the court’s decision is being respected and is currently under review to determine any possible next steps.
In January 2019, Kelly assumed office as the new leader. At first, she kept Bruce as KHP superintendent. However, in March, she felt the need to change leadership and instructed her chief of staff, Will Lawrence, to take action. Bruce resigned after meeting with Lawrence, but later filed a lawsuit.
During the trial in February, the sole claim that remained was summarized by Crabtree. According to him, the plaintiff accused Governor Kelly of violating his procedural due process rights. This was allegedly done through Mr. Lawrence, who coerced the plaintiff to resign. Furthermore, the plaintiff claimed that Governor Kelly failed to comply with Kansas law which required him to be reinstated to his former rank of Major.
Crabtree decided to form an advisory jury during the February trial to assess whether the circumstances were such that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. Bruce was the side that received the support of six out of seven jurors.
Kelly’s legal team made a request to the judge to disregard the verdict of the jury, stating that the decision made by the advisory jury is not binding on the district court. They emphasized that such a verdict is only advisory in nature and should not hold any legal weight.
Crabtree denied the request to set aside the verdict, stating that the court had heard the same evidence as the jury and both sides presented evidence to support their version of events. The advisory jury ultimately believed the plaintiff’s account and concluded that a reasonable person in their position would have felt compelled to resign. Crabtree agreed with this verdict and believed that a jury was the best way to determine whether a reasonable person would have acted in the same way.
The jury has determined that the former leader of the Kansas Highway Patrol was forced to resign. This verdict was reached after careful consideration of all the evidence presented.
