The Wyandotte County Unified Government is suing longtime state Sen. David Haley of Kansas City, seeking to recover benefits that were paid to a woman who he allegedly falsely claimed was his wife when he served on the Board of Public Utilities.
The lawsuit, filed in Wyandotte County District Court, accuses Haley of listing Rosita Pineda as his wife for the purposes of getting her health insurance coverage, although he later acknowledged that they were not married.
The lawsuit says Haley knew that he was neither married to nor in a common law
marriage with Pineda when he entered the contract with the BPU and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City to obtain health coverage, which started in January 2022.
“Despite this knowledge, he falsely identified Ms. Pineda as his dependent and legal
spouse to provide Ms. Pineda with health insurance coverage,” the lawsuit said.
“As a board member of the BPU, Defendant Haley intentionally used his position for private gain of his and Ms. Pineda’s health coverage in violation of the BPU Health Benefit Plan,” the lawsuit said.
The Wyandotte County’s Unified Government accuses of Haley of fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of contract and fraudulent inducement.
The UG is seeking $125,000 – $25,000 for each of the five counts – for lost benefits,
liquidated damages, attorney’s fees and all other related costs.
Last September, the Kansas City Board of Public Utilities removed Haley as its president after finding that he violated an ethics policy that barred an elected official from using their office for personal gain.
The board voted to censure and remove Haley from his position as president after an investigation found that Haley listed his domestic partner as a spouse on his health insurance benefits plan.
“It is undisputed that the elected official listed an individual who is not the official’s spouse on the application,” the report said.
“It is also undisputed that the individual received health insurance benefits the individual was not entitled to,” the report said.
Haley told the board last summer that he was open about his relationship and that he had permission to list his partner of 15 years on the enrollment form from the former general manager and former benefits manager – a point disputed by BPU staffers at the time.
In an interview at the Capitol, Haley questioned the news value about the lawsuit for an audience that goes beyond the Kansas City area.
He also questioned the relevance of the lawsuit to his work as a state senator.
Haley said he had not seen the lawsuit, although he had been interviewed about the litigation by other media outlets in Kansas City.
“Wanting to paint me, after all the years, decades of public service, as someone who would be fraudulent in representation or anything else, it’s defamatory,” he said.
He said his critics who he says are behind what he sees as an effort to hurt him politically are getting a “pound of flesh” by republishing allegations that are “not in concert with who David Haley is or what I am.”
“I didn’t do anything wrong. There has been no wrongdoing on my part,” he said.
“It’s been a successful attack on an unblemished record of over 30 years in the public eye and public service,” he said.
As a member of the Board of Public Utilities, Haley received benefits through the agency as a contractor through Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City, the court filing said.
On or about Dec. 29, 2021, Haley completed a new hire enrollment form for health insurance coverage under the group contract, which requested the marital status of the individual seeking coverage, the lawsuit said.
Haley didn’t identify whether he was “married” or “single” on the contract, the lawsuit said. But Haley did identify Pineda as his “spouse” to be covered by insurance.
Last June, the BPU decided to transition its board members, including Haley, from 1099 contractors to W-2 employees.
The BPU requested each board member provide updated documentation for tax and benefit purposes, including documentation of the status of their beneficiaries.
The BPU provided each board member with the required documents needed for payroll information and benefit applications to convert to them to employees, such as a marriage
certificate or common law marriage affidavit for a spouse.
Last July 14, Haley and two other board members were scheduled to jointly meet with human resources to complete their W-2 onboarding documentation, the lawsuit said.
During orientation on July 14, Haley notified Human Resources that he was not legally married to Pineda, the lawsuit said.
Haley also said he did not have a marriage certificate and did not have – nor would he sign – documentation to support a common-law marriage to Pineda, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit said that Haley refused to fill out a common-law marriage affidavit because he was not married to Pineda.
Investigators from the Unified Government and the BPU met with Haley in August of last year to determine the status of the relationship between Haley and Pineda for purposes of the health insurance benefits and the transition to being an agency employee, the lawsuit said.
Haley identified Pineda as a “spouse” on the contract because the two were engaged in a long-term civil relationship, they lived together, had a joint bank account, and their families consider them married, the lawsuit said.
Haley denied that he was married, part of a civil union, or married under common law, the lawsuit said.
“Defendant Haley and Ms. Pineda have never participated in any legal process to become married or a member of a civil union,” the lawsuit said.
“Ms. Pineda is listed as Defendant Haley’s landlord to whom he pays rent. Ms. Pineda’s name is recorded on the deed to the property. Defendant Haley’s is not.”
The lawsuit said that Haley claimed that prior to filling out his 2021 health insurance contract, he spoke with the BPU about his relationship status.
“Defendant Haley contended the BPU understood his relationship with Ms. Pineda as ‘partners’ and they were not married under common law,” the lawsuit said.
On July 19, 2025, a Unified Government investigator spoke with a BPU representative about Haley’s relationship status, the lawsuit said.
“The BPU representative denied ever speaking with Defendant Haley about his relationship status or Defendant Haley’s benefit enrollment, or any knowledge of Defendant Haley’s marital status,” the lawsuit said.
