Opinion ID: 613272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Helm's Complaints About Sexual Harassment and the First Judicial District's Response

Text: Between 2003 and 2007, Helm complained to a coworker, Karen Connor, about Judge Stewart on approximately ten different occasions. She never mentioned specifics, stating only that Judge Stewart made her uncomfortable. In late June or early July 2007, Helm approached the chief judge of the First Judicial District, David King, and told him that Judge Stewart had done something inappropriate and made her feel uncomfortable. She did not disclose any details. Chief Judge King told Helm that no one should work under those circumstances and advised her of the procedure for making a complaint. He also told her that if she wished to make a complaint, the First Judicial District would stand beside and support her fully and that there would be no consequence to her as a result of making the complaint. (Aplt.App., vol. VI at 1150.) Helm said that she wanted to think about whether to make a complaint, and Chief Judge King responded, Well, don't take too long, because if you don't do anything, I'm going to have to do something since you've conveyed this to me. ( Id. ) In addition, Chief Judge King commented that the matter would take on a life of its own that [Helm] wouldn't be able to control once an investigation began. ( Id. At 1157) Helm came back to Chief Judge King the same day and said that she had resolved the matter with Judge Stewart and did not wish to pursue it further. [4] Chief Judge King relayed his conversation with Helm to Steven Crossland, the court administrator, but neither King nor Crossland made a report to the OJA. In his deposition, Chief Judge King explained that Helm's decision not to pursue her complaint after he explained the process to her led him to believe that maybe there was not really a problem. He also stated, [I]f I had given credit to her complaint and if I had assumed that she had been the victim of sexual harassment, it would not have been a matter of her choice of reporting it. But she didn't give any details. ( Id. ) In July 2007, Helm requested medical leave so that she could seek treatment for alcohol and drug abuse. She was given permission to take unpaid leave under the Family Medical Leave Act after she exhausted her sick leave and vacation. During the month of July, Helm received inpatient treatment at an alcohol and drug rehabilitation facility. On August 8, 2007, before Helm was scheduled to return to work, she reported to Judge Bednar that Judge Stewart had sexually harassed her. This was the first time that she had made any mention of the issue to Judge Bednar. Helm told Judge Bednar that the harassment was basically verbal, but it had gotten to touching or had involved touching. ( Id. vol. II at 120.) She also informed Judge Bednar about her previous conversations with Chief Judge King. Judge Bednar immediately reported Helm's complaint to Chief Judge King and Steven Crossland. Judge Bednar also told Judge Stewart about the complaint. According to Judge Stewart, Judge Bednar opined that Helm was making the claim simply because she was after money. Crossland notified the OJA of the complaint later that same day. At that time, Crossland believed that Helm would return to work on August 13, 2007, and he planned to talk to her and Chief Judge King on that day about changing her duties so that she would not have to work for Judge Stewart anymore. Helm did not return to work on August 13. On August 21, 2007, Mike Helm, Christie Helm's husband, contacted Crossland about his wife's job status. The Helms were concerned because Christie had received smaller paychecks and then no paychecks during her leave of absence. Later that day, Crossland met with the Helms and explained that the change in pay was because of Christie Helm's exhaustion of sick leave, not because her job was in jeopardy. Crossland also raised the issue of Helm's sexual harassment complaint against Judge Stewart, stating that sexual harassment would not be tolerated and that the complaint would be investigated regardless of whether she submitted a formal written complaint. Crossland testified that he then assured Helm that they would discuss changing her duties upon her return to work, although Helm testified that she does not remember that part of the conversation. At some point after Crossland relayed Helm's complaint to the OJA  the record is unclear as to the exact date  the KCJQ initiated an investigation into Helm's allegations against Judge Stewart. Helm testified before the KCJQ on September 17, 2007.