? Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt’s office will ask Gov. Sam Brownback and legislative leaders on Friday to approve settlements of two federal lawsuits against the state, including one filed by a former Osawatomie State Hospital employee who was raped by a patient there in 2015.

The proposed settlements will be discussed during a meeting of the State Finance Council. The main purpose of that meeting will be to reauthorize the temporary use of idle funds to manage the state’s cash flow during the upcoming fiscal year, which begins Saturday, July 1.

Rape lawsuit

The case involving the former hospital worker was one of several factors that prompted the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to decertify Osawatomie State Hospital in December 2015, an action that has been costing the state about $1 million a month since that time in lost Medicare reimbursements.

The woman, who worked as a mental health technician, is seeking compensation under Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act for sexual harassment and discrimination.

According to the complaint she filed in federal court, she was on duty the evening of Oct. 27, 2015, when 42-year-old Aaron Goodman, who was known to be physically violent and sexually aggressive, was admitted into the hospital involuntarily, although she was never warned of Goodman’s violent history.

Because of his violent tendencies, her complaint alleges, mental health staff were supposed to check on the man every 15 minutes, and security personnel were supposed to perform 10-minute safety checks.

The complaint alleges that security video shows that between 8 and 9 p.m. that day, those checks were never performed, even though a mental health worker documented that the man was checked at 8:30 p.m. and that he was resting or sleeping in bed.

However, according to the complaint, at 8:28 p.m., the female worker went to Goodman’s room to bring him a gown. The complaint says Goodman grabbed her, put his hand over her mouth, threw her onto the bed and raped her.

The woman reportedly screamed for help and banged on the walls, but no one from the hospital came to her aid; she was rescued only when two other patients at the hospital heard her screams, called out for help themselves and then pulled Goodman off her.

Security personnel did not arrive until about 8:38 p.m., eight minutes after the rape began, according to her complaint.

The state initially challenged the suit. It filed a motion in January to dismiss the case, arguing that the state was not liable for the criminal acts of someone who wasn’t a state employee and that the only remedy the woman was entitled to would be a worker’s compensation claim.

Since then, however, attorneys on both sides have been negotiating for a settlement, and court records indicate they reached a proposed agreement in April, but that agreement must be approved by the Finance Council, which only meets when the Legislature is not in session.

Goodman was charged with felony rape. His criminal case is still pending in Miami County District Court.

Court records in the case do not indicate what the proposed civil settlement entails, and the Finance Council’s published agenda includes no further information. That information will be made public only if the Finance Council approves the settlement.

Illegal search

The second proposed settlement involves a case filed by Peter Vasquez, a Colorado resident who was in the process of moving to Maryland in December 2011 when, he alleged, the Kansas Highway Patrol subjected him to an unlawful search while he was driving across Kansas on Interstate 70 late at night.

According to court records, officers said they stopped Vasquez in Wabaunsee County because the temporary tag for his 1992 BMW was taped behind a tinted window and was therefore not visible. But they became suspicious when they saw blankets and a pillow in the back seat that appeared to be covering something up.

At one point during the traffic stop, the officers asked Vasquez for permission to search his car, which he refused. Later, another officer in charge of a trained drug dog arrived at the scene. The officers and the dog searched the vehicle, but no drugs were found.

Vasquez sued the two officers personally for damages to his vehicle, for humiliation and emotional distress, and for violating his constitutional protection against unwarranted search and seizure.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree initially dismissed the case, saying the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they were acting in their official capacity.

He also said the search was legal because the officers had “reasonable suspicion” that Vasquez might be transporting drugs based on the fact that he was coming from Colorado, which federal officials have cited as a source of drug distribution because of its liberal marijuana laws, and because he was driving late at night on I-70, a known “drug corridor.”

But in a stinging opinion on appeal, a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that dismissal, saying a person’s state of residence and route of travel on an interstate highway do not in any way form a reason to suspect someone of transporting drugs.

In a 2-1 ruling, the appeals court noted that at one time or another, federal prosecutors have argued that “almost every major city in the United States is a drug source area.”

“Currently, twenty-five states permit marijuana use for medical purposes, with Colorado, Alaska, Oregon, Washington, and Washington, D.C., permitting some recreational use under state law,” the appellate panel wrote. “Thus, the Officer’s reasoning would justify the search and seizure of the citizens of more than half of the states in our country.”

The state tried to appeal that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but in an order issued April 17, the nation’s high court refused to hear the case.