Kaulia v. County of Maui, Dept. of Pub. Works

• Decision Date: 20 July 2007
• Docket Number: Civil No. 05-00290 JMS/LEK.
• Citation: Kaulia v. County of Maui, Dept. of Pub. Works, 504 F.Supp.2d 969 (D. Haw. 2007)
• Parties: Donald KAULIA, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF MAUI, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT; David Goode, Director of the Department of Public Works and Waste Management; Tracey Takamine, Chief of the Waste Water Branch; John Jake Kostrick, Supervisor, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

504 F.Supp.2d 969

Donald KAULIA, Plaintiff, v.COUNTY OF MAUI, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT; David Goode, Director of the Department of Public Works and Waste Management; Tracey Takamine, Chief of the Waste Water Branch; John Jake Kostrick, Supervisor, Defendants.

Civil No. 05-00290 JMS/LEK.

United States District Court, D. Hawai`i.

July 20, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Andre S. Wooten, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff.

Brian T. Moto, Cheryl A. Tipton, Department of the Corporation Counsel, Wailuku, HI, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS" MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

SEABRIGHT, District Judge.

I.INTRODUCTION

PlaintiffDonald Kaulia("Plaintiff') filed suit against DefendantsDavid Goode("Goode"), Tracey Takamine("Takamine"), John Jake Kostrick("Kostrick"), and the County of Maui Department of Public Works and Waste Management("County")(collectively "Defendants"), alleging claims of discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981(as amended), Title VII, andHawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS")§§ 368 and 378.

Defendants move for partial summary judgment claiming that Plaintiffs§ 1981 and punitive damages claims against Goode and Takamine should be dismissed because Goode and Takamine never actively discriminated against Plaintiff and that, even if they had, they are entitled to qualified immunity; that Plaintiffs§ 1981 claim for alleged negative job references is untimely; and that Plaintiffs Hawaii state law claims are time-barred due to Plaintiffs failure to provide written notice to the County as required under HRS § 46-72.Defendants also move for summary judgment as to the Title VII claims against the County; the § 1981 claims against the County and Kostrick; and the punitive damages claim against Kostrick arguing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the Defendants' motions for partial summary judgment and for summary judgment.

II.BACKGROUND

A.Factual Background

Plaintiff, who is Hawaiian, is a former employee of the County of Maui Department of Public Works, Wastewater Management Division.¹Plaintiff was employed as a Wastewater Plant Worker at the Lahaina Wastewater Treatment Plant ("Lahaina Plant") from October 16, 1998 until April 19, 2002 when he resigned.²Plaintiffs primary duties included ground maintenance; treatment plant and pump station maintenance; and housekeeping duties.³The Wastewater Treatment Plant Worker Position Description states that "[t]he performance of [these] function[s] is the reason that the job exists," and notes that the position may involve "work in [a] hazardous, filthy and obnoxious working environment...."Defs'. Mot. for Partial Summ. J. Ex. Cat 31.Goode was the Director of the Maui County Department of Public Works from September 6, 2000 to January 2, 2003 and he is no longer employed by the County of Maui.SeeDefs'. Mot. For Partial Summ. J., KriegDecl. ¶ 3.Takamine was temporarily assigned as the County of Maui's Chief of the Wastewater Reclamation Division from September 1, 2001 to February 5, 2002.He held the Chief position outright from February 6, 2002 to August 21, 2005.SeeDefs'. Mot. For Partial Summ. J., TakamineDecl. ¶ 3.Kostrick was Plaintiffs Supervisor at the Lahaina Plant.

The following is a summary of facts relating to Plaintiff's various allegations of discrimination and retaliation:

1.Denial of Transfer Requests

Plaintiff alleges that the County improperly denied his three requests for transfer to a different location.The first such instance occurred in April, 2001.At that time, Ron Riska("Riska"), the then-Chief of the Wastewater Reclamation Division, and Cheryl Marsh("Marsh"), a Personnel Specialist from the Department of Personnel Services, interviewed employees regarding rumors of threats of violence or possible violent uprisings due to a manpower shortage at the Lahaina Plant.Plaintiff, who indicated that he was not afraid of Kostrick or his alleged bullying,⁴ was not transferred.Others, including an African-American employee and a Hawaiian employee, were transferred to different locations.

Plaintiff also requested transfers in December, 2001 and January, 2002.During this time period, Plaintiff was rarely at work.⁵On January 4, 2002, Takamine and Assistant Wastewater Operations Program Superintendent Al Souza("Souza") held a meeting with Plaintiff during which they informed him that the Kihei Wastewater Plant Worker position they had previously offered was no longer available.However, Takamine and Souza told Plaintiffthey could place him outside of the Wastewater Division, and suggested a position with the Parks and Recreation Division.Plaintiff told Takamine and Souza that he would consider their offer.Defs'. Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. L.

On January 24, 2002, Souza advised Plaintiff that "there are no openings within the Division that you would be able to transfer into."Defs'. Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. M. However, Takamine continued to look for a transfer position for Plaintiff, writing a letter to Goode to request his assistance to determine whether Kaulia would qualify for any other open positions at his pay grade within the Department of Public Works.Defs'. Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. N. Goode responded to Plaintiff that "there are no available Wastewater Treatment Plant Worker positions currently available at any of the other plants.If you are interested in transferring or moving to any other position ... you should let us know...."Defs'. Mot. forSumm. J. Ex. 0.Plaintiff never indicated that he was interested in transferring to another department, and instead took a stress-related leave of absence from work.KauliaDep. Tr. 166-67.

2 "Dumb Hawaiian" Comments Directed at Plaintiff

Plaintiff alleges that Kostrick twice called him a "dumb Hawaiian."⁶The first incident occurred during Plaintiffs first week on the job.At that time, Kostrick was not yet his supervisor.Kostrick nonetheless gave Plaintiff work assignments.Plaintiff followed Kostrick's instructions for two days before being told that Kostrick did not have the authority to give Plaintiff assignments.Plaintiff alleges that Kostrick referred to him as a "dumb Hawaiian" at this time.Plaintiff explains that he"took this personal and confronted [Kostrick] and made myself clear to him how personal I could get legally and can take this matter physically outside of the premises one on one.[Kostrick] stood corrected and apologized.Since then, he and I had an understanding til this day."Defs'. Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. Qat 1.⁷

The second incident occurred either in 1998 or 2001 when Plaintiff was cutting a tree.As he explains it, "everybody is looking and everybody was laughing, because I was cutting one tree in an awkward position."KauliaDep. Tr. 82-83.Kostrick then allegedly referred to Plaintiff as a "dumb Hawaiian."

3."Haole Staff Car" Golf Cart

In late October, 1998, around the time that Plaintiff began working at the Lahaina Plant, Kostrick brought a golf cart to the Lahaina Plant for the workers to use to travel across the 12-acre property.Plaintiff alleges that Kostrick put a sign or sticker on the cart⁸ that read "Haole Staff Car."⁹KauliaDep. Tr. 97.Everyone at the plant was allowed to drive the cart and no one complained to Kostrick about the sticker.When an EEOC investigator indicated that the cart could be a problem, it was removed.The last time that Plaintiff saw the cart was in April, 2001.

4.General Comments Regarding Non-Caucasians

Plaintiff also alleges that Kostrick stated that he would hand pick his assistant supervisors "and they got to be white ... oh, no other colored people here.No way.Got to have white people."KauliaDep. Tr. 157.However, the individuals Kostrick selected to be his assistant supervisors, were, in fact, both Filipino.

5.Denial of Training

Plaintiff claims that he was denied the opportunity to take certain training courses necessary for his advancement.Plaintiff does not specify what training courses he was denied or when these supposed occurrences took place.Indeed, Plaintiff apparently did attend training and received a certificate upon completion of his course.Plaintiff himself turned down opportunities for other on-site training.KostrickDep. Tr. 27-28, 47; Defs'. Mot. for Partial Summ. J. Ex. XX; Defs'. Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. G.Other training which would allow Plaintiff to advance was available through a correspondence class which Plaintiff presumably could have completed at any time.There is no indication that Plaintiff did so. KostrickDep. Tr. 27-28.

6.Plaintiff Placed on Administrative Leave

On June 25 and again on June 26, 2001, Plaintiff sent Kostrick a fax stating that he would not be at work.See Defs'. Mot. for Summ. J. Exs. S & T. Kostrick, who received the faxes in the break room, apparently made a comment in front of other employees that he would deny Plaintiff S leave requests based on union and departmental rules¹⁰ and the existing manpower shortage.Plaintiff also claims that Kostrick stated that he was denying Plaintiff's leave request because of his discrimination complaint and "[al the B.S. [Plaintiff] is giving the [C]ounty."¹¹Pl's. Mem. in Opp'n, KauliaDecl. ¶ 41.When Plaintiff heard of Kostrick's comments, he became enraged, claiming that his privacy had been violated and that he had been defamed.Plaintiff confronted Kostrick, pounding on Kostrick's office door, calling Kostrick a "fucking haole" and a liar, and stating "you want see some stress get out here now.Now.Now.Call the cops, I'm going to beat your ass you fucka."SeeKauliaDep. Tr. 186;Defs'. Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. Wat 2;Defs'. Mot. for Summ. J., KostrickDecl. ¶ 22.Although Plaintiff was not disciplined for this behavior, he was placed on...