Linville v. State of Hawaii, Civ. No. 93-00661 ACK.
| Decision Date | 02 December 1994 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 93-00661 ACK. |
| Citation | 874 F. Supp. 1095 |
| Parties | Marcia LINVILLE, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF HAWAII; Bartholomew, A. Kane, State Librarian; and Doe Defendants 1-10, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Lunsford D. Phillips, Honolulu, HI, for plaintiff.
Marcia Linville, pro se.
Robert A. Marks, Francis P. Keeno, Sherri-Ann Loo, Office of the Atty. Gen., State of HI, Honolulu, HI, for defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On January 13, 1994, Plaintiff Marcia Linville filed her First Amended Complaint,1 alleging that Defendant State of Hawaii ("State") discriminated against her on the basis of her gender when the State did not select her for the position of Deputy State Librarian.2 Plaintiff also alleged that the State wrongfully terminated her from her employment as a Public Librarian III.
Plaintiff Linville was employed as a librarian by the State of Hawaii's public library system for over nineteen years. Throughout most of her tenure, Plaintiff served in the position of children's librarian. From 1970 to 1988, Plaintiff was also Chief Steward for the Hawaii Government Employees Association, Unit 13. During that time, Plaintiff steadily participated in Title VII protected activities, both personally and as union steward. She has complained to the legislature, the Board of Education and the Librarian Advisory Committee about Defendant's discriminatory practices regarding librarian's pay. In 1985, she was the main plaintiff and witness in a class action trial against the State of Hawaii over a complaint she had filed with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging systemic gender discrimination in the form of unequal pay.
In 1985, Plaintiff became ill with Chronic Stress and Anxiety Syndrome. Originally, her illness was reasonably accommodated by informal authorization to work flexible hours, an accommodation which was also granted other library employees. In July, 1987, after Plaintiff's illness worsened, Defendant's physician recommended that Plaintiff be granted formal permission to work flexible hours. Defendant denied this request and instead began criticizing and disciplining Plaintiff's tardiness, absenteeism and work performance. Because Defendant would not allow her to work flexible hours, Plaintiff began calling in sick in the morning, remaining home until her physical symptoms abated. In the period from January 1988 to June 1988, Plaintiff reported late at least twenty days a month. During July through September her absenteeism was even worse.
Plaintiff charged the time she missed work as sick leave, of which she had accrued hundreds of hours during her 19 year tenure. Nonetheless, Defendant categorized this time as late or absent and disciplined Plaintiff with written reprimands and suspensions. Moreover, despite the fact that its own physician recommended Plaintiff work flexible hours, Defendant required Plaintiff to obtain a written doctor's excuse for each absence. Plaintiff has presented evidence that Defendant imposed different standards for her sick leave time than it imposed on other library employees.
During this time, Plaintiff and Defendant met to discuss Defendant's concerns with respect to Plaintiff's irregular attendance. Defendant presented two options to accommodate Plaintiff's health condition—a job sharing position or a temporary assignment as an Adult Reference librarian which would allow more flexibility. Plaintiff rejected these options because she could not financially afford the reduction in pay that would result from a job sharing position and because she was concerned that she could be terminated without cause from the temporary Adult Reference position.
Sometime in 1987, the Hawaii State Legislature created a new civil service position entitled "Deputy State Librarian." The creation of this position was announced in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star Bulletin on or about November 15, 1987. The announcement stated that applicants for the newly created position must possess a masters degree in library science and no less than five years of progressively responsible library work experience. On or about December 28, 1987, a letter was sent to all initial applicants for the position, including Plaintiff. The letter stated that the State of Hawaii would permit applicants for the newly created position to substitute equivalent education or work experience to satisfy the minimum qualifications. The Deputy State Librarian position was reannounced with the following additional statement:
a combination of qualified progressively responsible professional work experience and/or job related education equivalent to a masters degree in library science may be accepted in lieu of the formal academic degree specified.
Approximately fifty-five people, including Plaintiff, applied for the Deputy State Librarian position. The State Librarian, Bartholomew Kane, interviewed seventeen female applicants and five male applicants during the period of January 11, 1988, through January 20, 1988. After the interviews were completed, the State Librarian selected a male applicant, John R. Penebacker ("Penebacker"), to fulfill the newly created position of Deputy State Librarian.
All of the female applicants interviewed by Kane had either masters or doctoral degrees in library science and substantial experience in library work. In contrast, Penebacker possessed a bachelor's degree in political science and had never worked in a library. Instead, Penebacker had significant work experience in state government. He was a research assistant for the Senate Majority Research Office for the Hawaii State Legislature, Special Programs Specialist for the Hawaii Government Employees Association, a delegate to the 1978 Constitutional Convention and a member of the State Board of Education.
Shortly after Penebacker was selected and appointed to the position of Deputy State Librarian, the State Librarian developed a new job description for the position and changed the job title to "Special Assistant to the State Librarian." The new description had substantially reduced job qualifications, requiring only a bachelor degree from an accredited college, with major work in business administration or political science and four years of administrative experience in government or large business.
Following Penebacker's appointment, Plaintiff voiced loud complaints to the Hawaii State Legislature and the Hawaii Board of Education. She also appeared on television, where she further protested his selection.
On or about September 4, 1988, Plaintiff again met with the State Librarian to discuss her work performance. At that meeting, Defendant offered to place Plaintiff on medical leave for six months if she would drop her grievances and Title VII complaints. According to Plaintiff, Defendant also threatened to terminate her employment if she refused to withdraw her complaints. Plaintiff refused Defendant's offer and was subsequently terminated on or about October 3, 1988.
Following her termination, Plaintiff filed a claim of discriminatory and retaliatory discharge with the EEOC. On September 27, 1990, the EEOC issued a letter of determination stating that it found Plaintiff was discriminated against in the terms and conditions of her employment and discharged from her position in retaliation for her engaging in activities protected by Title VII. The EEOC found insufficient evidence, however, to support Plaintiff's allegation that she was discriminated against because of her gender. The EEOC issued Plaintiff a notice of right-to-sue on May 26, 1993.
Plaintiff also filed a labor grievance challenging her discharge as being without "proper cause" and therefore in violation of the Unit 13 Collective Bargaining Agreement. The grievance was submitted to arbitration and the arbitrator affirmed Defendant's discharge of Plaintiff in an opinion filed September 16, 1994.
Summary judgment shall be granted where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). One of the principal purposes of the summary judgment procedure is to identify and dispose of factually unsupported claims and defenses. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The United States Supreme Court has declared that summary judgment must be granted against a party who fails to demonstrate facts to establish an element essential to its case where that party will bear the burden of proof of that essential element at trial. Id. at 322, 106 S.Ct. at 2552. "If the party moving for summary judgment meets its initial burden of identifying for the court the portions of the materials on file that it believes demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact citations omitted, the nonmoving party may not rely on the mere allegations in the pleadings in order to preclude summary judgment." T.W. Electrical. Serv. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Assoc., 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.1987). Instead, Rule 56(e) requires that the nonmoving party set forth, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. At least some "significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint" must be produced. Id. Legal memoranda and oral argument are not evidence and do not create issues of fact capable of defeating an otherwise valid motion for summary judgment. British Airways Bd. v. Boeing Co., 585 F.2d 946, 952 (9th Cir.1978).
The standard for a grant of summary judgment reflects the standard governing the grant of a directed verdict. See Eisenberg v. Ins. Co. of North...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hale v. Hawaii Publications, Inc., Civ. No. 05-00709 ACK-BMK.
...the Hawaii tort statute of limitations is two years. This limitation period applies to Plaintiffs IIED claim. Linville v. State of Hawaii, 874 F.Supp. 1095, 1104 (D.Haw.1994); C & W Const. Co. v. Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 745, AFL-CIO, 687 F.Supp. 1453, 1460 (D......
-
Nosie v. Ass'n Of Flight Attendants-cwa
...VII administrative remedy, even if the claims are based on the same facts and directed toward the same ends. Linville v. State of Hawaii, 874 F.Supp. 1095, 1104 (D.Haw.1994) (citing Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454, 467, 95 S.Ct. 1716, 44 L.Ed.2d 295 (1975)). That is, “[w]hen......
-
You v. Longs Drugs Stores Cal., LLC
...questions the appropriateness of reading such a requirement into the act. The court recognizes that, in Linville v. State of Hawaii, 874 F.Supp. 1095, 1104 n. 4 (D.Haw.1994), Judge Alan C. Kay noted that a section 378–62 claim had to be administratively exhausted. Judge Kay did not, however......
-
Young v. Hawaii
...State of Hawaii has not waived its sovereign immunity from suit in federal court for civil rights actions. See Linville v. State of Hawaii, 874 F.Supp. 1095, 1103 (D.Haw.1994). Here, the State of Hawaii Defendants have invoked the doctrine of sovereign immunity.C. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, a......