Tuomela v. Waldorf-Astoria Grand Wailea Hotel

• Decision Date: 12 May 2021
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 20-00117 JMS-RT
• Parties: WENDY TUOMELA, Plaintiff, v. WALDORF-ASTORIA GRAND WAILEA HOTEL, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

WENDY TUOMELA, Plaintiff, v. WALDORF-ASTORIA GRAND WAILEA HOTEL, Defendant.

Civ. No. 20-00117 JMS-RT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

May 12, 2021

ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO COUNTS FOUR AND FIVE, ECF NO. 50; AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 52

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Waldorf=Astoria Management LLC¹ moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings as to Counts Four (alleging wrongful termination) and Five (alleging breach of contract) of pro se Plaintiff Wendy Tuomela's ("Plaintiff" or "Tuomela") Complaint. ECF No. 50. Plaintiff responds with a Motion for Summary Judgment, affirmatively seekingjudgment on all remaining counts of the Complaint. ECF No. 52. Based on the following, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED. Counts Four and Five are DISMISSED with prejudice. Count Three (alleging defamation) is Plaintiff's only remaining claim. The action, however, has been STAYED pending resolution of criminal charges against Plaintiff in a state court action. See ECF Nos. 70, 71.

II. BACKGROUND

Tuomela's Complaint alleges that she was wrongfully terminated in April 2018 from her 20-year term of employment at the Grand Wailea Hotel after being falsely accused of theft. ECF No. 1-1 at PageID ## 11, 15-18. Based on that termination and related events, she alleged the following five counts: Count One ("Extortion"), Count Two ("Breach of Fiduciary Duty"), Count Three ("Defamation of Character"), Count Four ("Wrongful Termination"), and Count Five ("Breach of Contract"). Id. at PageID ## 12-19.

By previous Orders, the court dismissed Counts One and Two with prejudice. See ECF No. 28, Tuomela v. Waldorf-Astoria Grand Wailea Hotel, 2020 WL 3490027 (D. Haw. June 26, 2020) (Order dismissing Count One); and ECF No. 48, Tuomela v. Waldorf-Astoria Grand Wailea Hotel, 2021 WL 232809 (D. Haw. Jan. 22, 2021) (Order dismissing Count Two). The court also denied aMotion for Judgment on the Pleadings that sought to dismiss Count Three based only on an assertion of an absolute privilege as to defamation. See ECF No. 49, Tuomela v. Waldorf-Astoria Grand Wailea Hotel, 2021 WL 233695 (D. Haw. Jan. 22, 2021). Waldorf now moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Counts Four and Five, and the court thus focuses only on the allegations as to those two Counts.

A. Count Four

Count Four for "wrongful termination" begins with the following description of the legal basis for that claim:

Wrongful Termination: Elements of Wrongful Dismissal [a] Violates laws against discrimination (age). [b] Not aligning with written and spoken employment agreements (ILWU contract) [c] Violation of specific Labor Laws (Department of Labor and Industrial Relations Administrative Rules: Title 12, Chapter 24) [d] Results in an employee complaint adjacent to the employer. 1] (Verbal abuse and threats from a co-worker) 2] (whistel-blower (sic) concerning Infestation of Black Mold) 3] (Extortion of Cash and termination without following chain of command or protocol) (H.R.S. 378-62) (42 U.S.C.2000e-3(a)).

ECF No. 1-1 at PageID # 15 (brackets in original).² In a lengthy factual basis, Count Four then alleges that Plaintiff's locker was illegally searched (presumably by the Defendant):

On April 13th, 2018, Ms. Tuomela's locker was illegally searched and the contents were removed. Her 4th Amendment rights were violated. There was no probable cause, no warrant, and no documentation of the items removed from her locker. At the time of the unwarranted search, there was no law enforcement officer present, nor was Ms. Tuomela present. The removal of her personal items can be called breaking, entering and theft. Many of her personal belongings were never returned to her, including a mesh bag of valuable (irreplaceable) earrings and her personal cash bank, which contained U.S. currency and unused prepaid cash cards.

Id. Count Four then describes how Plaintiff was "put on suspension pending investigation" after a meeting on that day where "she was sequestered in a small back office with the door closed and detained by Ms. Kawabata and Mr. Palazzotto[,] two people she was not acquainted with." Id. It continues:

Mr. Palazzotto verbally threatened Ms. Tuomela with incarceration. Mr. Palazzotto's words to her: "I know where you live, and I will send the police to your house to arrest you, if you don't come clean with me right now!" He then proceeded to shove a Visa credit card in Ms. Tuomela's face and shouted "What did you do?" Ms. Tuomela had no idea what he was yelling about, and told him so. Ms. Kawabata, Human Resource representative, just sat there and allowed the abuse to continue. Ms. Kawabata had a duty to Ms. Tuomela to defend her against the verbal abuse she was receiving from Mr.Palazzotto, a fellow associate crossing the lines of abuse. He had no right to verbally assault Ms. Tuomela. Ms. Tuomela asked for a union representative and a steward was located by phone. The union shop steward informed Ms. Tuomela that she had the right to remain silent and the union would contact her.

Id. The Complaint then describes, apparently still as part of Count Four's wrongful termination claim, meetings with Palazzotto, Kawabata, and a union representative, Stephen West, on April 16 and 17, 2018, where theft accusations against Plaintiff were discussed. Id. at PageID # 16.³

It alleges that, at an April 17, 2018 meeting, "Mr. Palazzotto informed Ms. Tuomela that there was a Maui Police officer outside and he was there to take her to jail." Id. "In fear with extreme anxiety and under duress Ms. Tuomela asked Mr. West what she should do, she was scared and she did not want to go to jail." Id. "Mr. West came out and told Ms. Tuomela that the only way she wouldavoid going to jail right now, would be to pay $900.00 more in cash, to Ms. Kawabata and Mr. Palazzotto. . . She complied with the demand and paid the cash ransom to Ms. Kawabata." Id. After that, "Ms. Kawabata informed Ms. Tuomela that she was terminated from her 20[-]year employment at the Grand Wailea Hotel. At that time[,] Ms. Kawabata verbally stated that the circumstances of the termination would be kept confidential." Id.

B. Count Five

Count Five alleges a breach of contract as follows:

Breach of Contract: Elements of a Contract: A contract is an agreement between two parties that creates an obligation to do or refrain from doing a particular thing. Action for Breach of Contract arises when the performance of any person does not live up to the terms of the contract and causes the other party to suffer economic damages or other types of visible injury. (LMRDA Title V Section 50l(b)) (29 U.S.C. 185 & 501).

Id. at PageID # 18. A contract that was allegedly breached is apparently a verbal agreement between Defendant and Plaintiff regarding confidentiality of the reasons for her termination. Count Five alleges:

On April 17th, 2018, Ms. Carol Kawabata entered into a contract with Ms. Wendy Tuomela. The Offer was made by Ms. Kawabata to keep the circumstances of Ms. Tuomela's termination confidential. Ms. Tuomela agreed, accepted these terms, therefore the contract was formed. Witnesses to the formation of this contract were Stephen West (ILWU) and Michael Palazzotto hotelsecurity. "Consideration" was made to refrain from disclosure. Almost immediately[,] Ms. Kawabata breached this contract by disclosing the circumstances of the termination to Mr. Justin Sugarman, Humu outlet manager. Mr. Sugarman, on April 19th, 2018, then told the staff members of the outlet that Ms. Tuomela was terminated for theft and misconduct. . . . [T]he false accusations and false information then spread like wildfire throughout the hotel and the community defaming Ms. Tuomela. And the repercussions continue.

Id.

Plaintiff's breach of contract claim may also be based on a violation of a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA"). It is undisputed that Plaintiff's employment at the Grand Wailea was covered by a CBA.⁴ In addition to Count Five's reference to "(LMRDA Title V Section 50l(b)) (29 U.S.C. 185 & 501)," id. at PageID # 18, the Complaint makes several references to union representation, ECF No. 1-1 at PageID # 11, 13, 15-17. It also includes a statement attached to the Complaint that states:

Ms. Tuomela is a vested member of the I.L.W.U. Union Local 142. It is the absolute responsibility of this Union to represent and legally uphold the rights of its members. Ms. Tuomela is a member and has been a dues payingmember for 20 years, her union should be held accountable for her damages.

Id. at PageID # 58. Elsewhere, the Complaint also refers to "[n]ot aligning with written and spoken employment agreements (ILWU contract)." Id. at PageID # 15. And Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion clearly indicates that she believes her claim is based on an alleged failure of Defendant to follow the "protocol for terminating an employee with union seniority." ECF No. 58 at PageID # 535; see id. ("There was never an investigation conducted. Many of Ms. Tuomela's Union contract rights were ignored."); id. at PageID # 536 ("A contract 'EXISTS' between Ms. Tuomela's union and the Grand Wailea Hotel."); id. at PageID # 543 (earnings statement with deductions for union dues).

C. Procedural History

Defendant filed its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Counts Four and Five on February 1, 2021. ECF No. 50. On February 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 52. On March 5, 2021, Defendant filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 54, and Plaintiff filed a Response on March 22, 2021, ECF No. 57. On March 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed her Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 58, and Defendant filed a Statement of No Further Position onMarch 25, 2021, ECF No. 59. The court decides the Motions without an oral hearing under Local Rule 7.1(c...