Judge denies Rep. Grossberg’s attempt to halt ethics hearing on misconduct allegations
READ MORE
Investigation into Louisville Rep. Daniel Grossberg
A Herald-Leader investigation into allegations of sexual harassment involving Rep. Daniel Grossberg, D-Louisville, revealed he intimidated and harassed multiple women in and around Kentucky politics. He also was allegedly aggressive and threatening toward dancers in a Louisville strip club.
Expand All
A judge on Monday denied Kentucky Rep. Daniel Grossberg’s efforts to temporarily block a legislative ethics proceeding against him over allegations of misconduct.
Grossberg appeared before Franklin Circuit Court Judge Thomas Wingate Monday morning asking for him to intervene and dismiss the case.
“We’re asking for this whole proceeding to be dismissed because it violates the due process rights of Mr. Grossberg,” his attorney Thomas “T” Clay told Wingate during a virtual motion hour.
Wingate, in an order filed a couple hours after the hearing adjourned, denied Grossberg’s motion for a temporary injunction against the Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission.
The most immediate concern for Clay and Grossberg was a formal hearing set for Tuesday morning to vet allegations of unethical behavior against Grossberg, including inappropriate interactions with women.
Clay asked Wingate to postpone that hearing, citing two cases from the Supreme Court of the United States. Neither Wingate nor litigators with the Office of the Attorney General, who are representing the Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission, had read the case.
Wingate had not read the cases as of the Monday morning hearing, but after reviewing them he disagreed with Clay’s argument. He said he found one case cited by Clay “inapplicable” to the situation and raised concerns about interfering with the commission.
“The Court’s interference with the Commission’s statutory duty would interfere with such purpose and as the Attorney General mentioned at the June 16, 2025, hearing, may raise questions of separation of power violations,” Wingate wrote.
Grossberg filed the motion to dismiss the case late Friday afternoon.
Assistant Attorney General Aaron Silletto brought up the fact that Grossberg and his attorneys have known about the impending hearing since April or May and just filed their legal action Friday.
Wingate posed a question to Clay about that timing.
“I know that T’s known about this since April . . . Why do you wait until the day before?” Wingate asked.
Clay shared what he called “probably a lame excuse.” He said he had only recently become aware of the two Supreme Court cases that limit administrative bodies, like the ethics commission, when they become “judge, jury and executioner.”
But Silletto pushed back on that point.
The whole point of Tuesday’s preliminary hearing, he said, is to decide whether the case against Grossberg should be dismissed, or whether to schedule an evidentiary hearing, at which point Grossberg would be afforded ample opportunity to defend himself.
“Whether the ask of Mr. Clay is ‘order them to dismiss it,’ well that means the hearing needs to go ahead, because that’s part of the purpose of this preliminary hearing: to decide ‘should the complaint be dismissed or not?’”
Ethics investigation and offered settlement
The ethics commission began its probe into Grossberg last fall, at the initial request of former House Democratic leadership, finding “reason to believe (Grossberg) has committed or is about to commit a violation” of the state ethics code.
Grossberg was accused by multiple women of sexual harassment and misconduct, the Herald-Leader reported, including an instance of alleged harassment in Grossberg’s legislative office, as well as an incident where he inappropriately touched a dancer at a Louisville strip club, earning him a lifetime ban from the business.
Grossberg was offered — and refused — a deal last week from the ethics commission at the culmination of their investigation. It found “probable cause may exist to believe” he violated the state’s ethics code twice, including once when he invited a “volunteer issue advocate” to his office, drank alcohol and asked personal probing questions.
Grossberg told the commission “he did not knowingly or intentionally violate the Ethics Code,” according to the order.
He has not denied either finding, only how they’ve been misrepresented.
“Even though both of these incidents factually happened, they are described deliberately vaguely and painted in a false light that I don’t want to be weaponized against me,” he said in an interview with the Louisville television station WHAS11 last week.
Grossberg also called the other complaints the ethics commission dismissed because it was not able to substantiate, “completely baseless, frivolous and malicious.”
But the commission in its order said a “dismissal of any underlying claim does not constitute a finding the claim was false, but rather the commission did not believe there was clear and convincing evidence to support a finding of a violation of the Ethics Code.”
Had Grossberg signed the offer, the commission would have dismissed other complaints against him.
The order would have required him to receive a public reprimand, pay a $4,000 fine, enroll in mental health treatment and waive his right to bring civil action against the commission.
Instead, an executive session ethics hearing was scheduled for Tuesday. It’s akin to a preliminary hearing, where members will hear testimony from witnesses and determine whether to dismiss the complaints against Grossberg or move forward with an evidentiary hearing.
What’s in the Grossberg lawsuit?
On Friday, days before the formal ethics hearing, Grossberg and his attorney filed a 23-page complaint claiming the merits of the allegations are baseless and that the investigation against him is a coordinated retaliatory attack, in part as an act of antisemitism because he’s one of the few practicing Jewish lawmakers in Kentucky, and in part because he’s neurodiverse.
“The claims in the media and before the Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission are pretextual allegations to cover up clear discrimination against Rep. Grossberg for his faith and his neurodiversity,” the filing says.
Grossberg claims he was “targeted for his faith as soon as he was elected to the legislature as the House’s first actively practicing Jewish member,” which escalated in 2024 when he filed a resolution condemning Hamas’ attack on Israel.
“This faith-based discrimination culminated in attacks on him because of his defense of Israel as hostility between Israel and Palestine escalated,” the filing says.
He also accused former House Minority Whip Rachel Roberts and former House Minority Leader Cherlynn Stevenson — both fellow Democrats — of getting “several young people who worked with Stevenson and Roberts (to) file allegations of harassment,” some of which were outlined in the Herald-Leader’s reporting.
According to Grossberg, Roberts, Stevenson and the women who came forward with allegations were working in cabal to destroy his reputation and pressure him to resign.
“As a final note, the sad facts surrounding this entire investigation appear to be motivated by an antisemitic sentiment by a handful of powerful individuals,” the lawsuit says.
Furthermore, he alleges in the lawsuit, “the young people making the complaints all work for (Grossberg’s) current political opponent, making it clear that the goal of the discrimination was to force him to resign his seat,” though he does not name the political opponent.
Grossberg asked the court to intervene because he says the ethics investigation has caused him irreparable injury.
Wingate disagreed, saying Grossberg’s request to the court for relief failed to show he had experience irreparable harm.
“(Grossberg’s) motion for temporary injunction is riddled with his theories and beliefs as to why the commission is proceeding . . . and why the alleged complaint or complaints have come about,” Wingate wrote. “However, at this time, it cannot be said that the commission is acting outside of its statutory authority.”
Wingate added, “the Commission carrying forward its statutory duty cannot be said to create immediate and irreparable injury to (Grossberg).”
During the hearing Monday morning, Siletto said any injury Grossberg has experienced is of his own making.
“The process before the Legislative Ethics Commission is intended to be confidential, and were it not for the filing of this complaint and statements that the plaintiff or his counsel have made publicly, there would be no public knowledge of this matter at this point,” Silletto said.
“In terms of any purported reputational damage that this complaint alleges, that would not have happened but for the plaintiff’s or counsel’s own conduct, and you cant get an injunction because of a harm that is occasioned by the plaintiff’s own conduct.”
This story was originally published June 16, 2025 at 10:27 AM.
