Lales v. Wholesale Motors Co.
| Citation | 127 Hawai'i 412,279 P.3d 77 |
| Decision Date | 09 May 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 28516.,28516. |
| Parties | Gerard R. LALES, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. WHOLESALE MOTORS COMPANY, dba JN Automotive Group, Johnny Martinez, and Gary Marxen, Sr., Defendants–Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Hawai'i |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit; (CV. No. 03–1–2415).
Daphne E. Barbee, on the briefs, for Plaintiff–Appellant.
Roger S. MoseleyRenee M. Furuta (Moseley Biehl Tsugawa Lau & Muzzi LLLC) on the briefs, for Defendants–Appellees.
Wesley M. Fujimoto, Bryan P. Andaya, Ryan E. Sanada, (Imanaka Kudo & Fujimoto LLLC) on the briefs, for Amicus Curiae, Hawai‘i Employers Council.
John Ishihara, Hawai‘i Civil Rights Commission Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, on the briefs, for Amicus Curiae Hawai‘i Civil Rights Commission.
Shelton G.W. Jim, On Henry F. Beerman (Jim On & Beerman), on the briefs, for Amicus Curiae, Hawaii Automobile Dealers Assn.
John L. Knorek, (Torkildson, Katz, Moore & Hetherington), on the briefs, for Amicus Curiae, The Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii.
Ronald Albu (Albu & Albu), on the briefs, for Amicus Curiae, National Employment Lawyers Association–Hawai‘i Chapter.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case arises out of an employment discrimination lawsuit brought by Plaintiff–Appellant Gerard R. Lales (Lales). Lales filed a First Amended Complaint in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court) 1 against Defendants–Appellees Wholesale Motors Company, dba JN Automotive Group (JN), Johnny Martinez (Martinez), and Gary Marxen, Sr. (Marxen) (collectively, Defendants). Lales alleged, among other things, that during the course of his employment by JN as a car salesperson, he was harassed by derogatory comments about his French national origin and ancestry made by Martinez and Marxen and was later terminated, in retaliation for his complaints of discrimination. The First Amended Complaint asserted six causes of action (COA): (1) discriminatory acts towards Lales, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 378 2 (COA 1); (2) retaliation for Lales's complaints of discrimination, in violation of HRS Chapter 378 (COA 2); (3) breach of employment contract (COA 3); (4) termination of Lales after he complained of national origin harassment, in violation of public policy (COA 4); (5) discriminatory acts towards Lales, in violation of Section 703 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2 3 (COA 5); and (6) retaliation for Lales's opposing harassment, in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–3(a) 4 (COA 6). The Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Martinez, Marxen, and JN on all COAs raised by Lales in the First Amended Complaint. The Circuit Court also found that the claims raised by Lales in his First Amended Complaint were frivolous and awarded attorney's fees of $149,667.85 and costs of $9,272.81 to Defendants.
On appeal, Lales asserts that the Circuit Court: (1) abused its discretion in failing to recuse itself on the basis of bias or the appearance of bias; (2) erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Marxen on COAs 1 and 2; (3) erred in granting summary judgment in favor of JN on COAs 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6; (4) erred in awarding attorney's fees and costs to Defendants; and (5) abused its discretion in denying Lales's post-judgment motions.
For the reasons discussed below, we: (1) conclude that the Circuit Court did not err in failing to recuse itself; (2) vacate the Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Marxen on COAs 1 and 2; (3) vacate the Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of JN on COAs 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6; (4) vacate the Circuit Court's award of attorney's fees and costs to Defendants; (5) conclude that it is unnecessary for us to separately address Lales's claim that the Circuit Court abused its discretion in denying his post-judgment motions; and (6) remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.5
Lales was employed by JN as a car salesperson for almost a year before he was terminated. While employed by JN, Lales worked with Martinez, who was his sales manager and immediate supervisor for a period of time, and was supervised by Marxen, the General Sales Manager for JN.
Lales received a termination notice, which stated that he was being terminated due to a “lack of production,” and because he missed a “training meeting.” Lales questioned Marxen about these reasons, and Marxen reconsidered and allowed Lales to continue working. However, the following day, Lales was again terminated for allegedly selling a car to a customer by falsely representing that it was equipped with air conditioning. The previously issued termination notice was modified by changing the date and adding the comment:
After his termination, Lales jointly filed a complaint alleging national origin discrimination and retaliation with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Hawai‘i Civil Rights Commission (HCRC). As part of his complaint, Lales submitted a statement under penalty of perjury, in which he alleged, among other things, that Marxen “frequently referred to me as a ‘[F]rench bastard’ [ ] and told me to go back to my country because America does not need French people[,]” and that Marxen told Martinez “ ‘to go and kick the ass of that French bastard.’ “ According to Lales's statement, Martinez repeatedly harassed Lales by calling him “Frenchy” and telling him that “ ‘the French are useless bastards' “; that despite his complaints about Martinez's discrimination and harassment, Lales was transferred to Martinez's sales team; and that Lales remained on Martinez's sales team for months before being allowed to transfer to a new sales team, despite protesting Martinez's continuing harassment and discrimination. Lales alleged that he was “discriminated against and harassed because of my national origin, French”; that he “worked in a hostile environment and was retaliated against for protesting the discrimination and harassment”; and that the reasons given for his termination were “pretextual.”
The EEOC issued a “Determination” which stated that its investigation revealed that Lales “was harassed because of his national origin, French[,]” but that it was unable to conclude, based on the information obtained, that Lales was discharged in retaliation for opposing discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC determined that “there is reasonable cause to believe that Respondent [ (identified in the Determination as JN) ] discriminated against [Lales] because of his national origin.” After the EEOC's Determination, the HCRC issued a “Notice of Dismissal and Right to Sue” letter to Lales.
Lales subsequently filed his Complaint and the First Amended Complaint in Circuit Court. Martinez, Marxen, and JN each filed separate motions for summary judgment. Lales filed memoranda in opposition to these motions, which included his declaration. In Lales's declaration submitted in opposition to Marxen's motion for summary, Lales stated:
5. ... I was subjected to discrimination on the basis of my national origin/ancestry when my supervisor, Defendant MARXEN[,] referred to me as “fucking French bastard,” “Frenchie,” made derogatory remarks about French people, told my immediate supervisor, Defendant JOHNNY MARTINEZ[,] to “beat my fucken French ass,” and made remarks about French people. I was also subjected to ancestry harassment by Defendant MARTINEZ and other employees at my workplace, based upon my national origin-French. During my work at JN AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, someone placed feces on my car, for which a police report was made.
6. Defendant MARTINEZ was my immediate supervisor and referred to me as “French fries,” “Pepe Le Pieu,” I was told that I stink, that French women are just whores, “French are wimps” and other derogatory remarks. I asked to be transferred because of Defendant MARTINEZ's behavior towards me which included threats.
Lales also asserted that Marxen prevented him from participating in a radio promotion because of his French accent. Lales stated that he was terminated for the false reason of not selling enough vehicles, when he did not have the lowest sales at that time; that he was told he was terminated for not attending a meeting, but did not recall receiving notice of the meeting and did not know of anyone being terminated for not attending a sales meeting; and that he did not see or sign the termination notice referring to his lying to a customer about air conditioning and that he denied telling the customer the vehicle had air conditioning. Lales declared that before he was terminated, he complained orally to Marxen, his co-workers, and others about the remarks made about his ancestry, and that he sought advice from an attorney about hostile work environment and ancestry discrimination. He stated that he was aware of other sales representatives who were discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin by Marxen and JN.
In Lales's declaration submitted in opposition to JN's motion for summary judgment, he generally repeated these matters and asserted additional details, including that: (1) he is French and was born in France; (2) about a month before he was terminated, he complained to Marxen about being harassed and Marxen called him a “ ‘Fucken French Bastard,’ “ told him to get out of Marxen's office, and told Maritnez to “ ‘beat his f* * * * * * French Ass' “; (3) after questioning the initial reasons for his termination—failing to sell enough vehicles and missing a meeting—Marxen changed his mind and allowed Lales to continue to work; (4) the next day, Lales was terminated and told to leave for selling a truck without air conditioning; (5) he “den[ied] that [he] told the customer the truck had air conditioning” and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jura v. Cnty. of Maui, CIV. NO. 11-00338 SOM/RLP
...individuals. The Hawaii Supreme Court has just granted a certiorari petition raising that issue in Lales v. Wholesale Motors Co., 127 Haw. 412, 279 P.3d 77 (Ct. App.) (unpublished), cert. granted, SCWC-28516, 2012 WL 4801373 (Haw. Oct. 9, 2012). The Lales ruling by the Hawaii Intermediate C......