U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Global Horizons, Inc.

Decision Date28 February 2014
Docket NumberCIVIL 11-00257 LEK
CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii)
PartiesUNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., DBA GLOBAL HORIZONS MANPOWER, INC.; CAPTAIN COOK COFFEE COMPANY LTD.; DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (HAWAII), INC.; KAUAI COFFEE COMPANY, INC.; KELENA FARMS, INC.,; MAC FARMS OF HAWAII, LLC NKA MF NUT CO., LLC; MAUI PINEAPPLE COMPANY, LTD. AKA MAUI PINEAPPLE FARMS; ALEXANDER & BALDWIN, INC.; MASSIMO ZANETTI BEVERAGE USA, INC.; AND DOES 1-15, INCLUSIVE, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC.
D/B/A GLOBAL HORIZONS MANPOWER INC.'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
AND DENYING GLOBAL HORIZONS'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court are: Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ("the EEOC" or "Plaintiff") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defendant Global Horizons, Inc. d/b/a Global Horizons Manpower Inc.'s1 Affirmative Defenses ("Affirmative Defenses Motion"), filed on November 1, 2013; [dkt.nos. 594-95;] and Global Horizons's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Global Horizons Motion"), filed on November 1, 2013 [dkt. no. 599].2 Global Horizons did not respond to the EEOC's motions.3 On December 6, 2013, the EEOC filed a consolidated reply as to all four of its motions, emphasizing Global Horizons's failure to respond. [Dkt. no. 659.] The EEOC filed its memorandum in opposition to the Global Horizons Motion on December 2, 2013. [Dkt. no. 652]. Global Horizons did not file a reply in support of its motion.

The Court finds these matters suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Hawai`i ("Local Rules"). After careful consideration of the motions, supporting and opposing memoranda, and the relevant legal authority, the EEOC's Affirmative Defenses Motions is HEREBY GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and the GlobalHorizons Motion is HEREBY DENIED, for the reasons set forth below.

BACKGROUND

On April 19, 2011, the EEOC filed this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The EEOC filed its First Amended Complaint on July 15, 2011, its Second Amended Complaint on December 16, 2011, and its Third Amended Complaint on June 4, 2012. [Dkt. nos. 12, 128, 263.] The Third Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants discriminated against a class of Thai agricultural workers ("the Class members") on the basis of their national origin, and/or race and/or in retaliation for their participation in protected activities. Specifically, the Third Amended Complaint alleges the following claims: pattern or practice of discriminatory treatment based on national origin, retaliation, and/or constructive discharge, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), 2000e-3(a) ("Count I"); hostile work environment/harassment, in violation of § 2000e-2(a) ("Count II"); discriminatory terms and conditions of employment, in violation of § 2000e-2(a) ("Count III"); and retaliation, in violation of § 2000e-3 ("Count IV"). [Third Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 622-96.] Relevant to the instant motions, the Third Amended Complaint prays for: permanent injunctive relief against Global Horizons prohibiting it from engaging in discrimination based onthe Class members' national origin and/or race, prohibiting it from engaging in retaliation, and requiring it to provide equal employment opportunities for persons of Thai national origin and/or Asian race and to eradicate the effects of past and present illegal employment practices; an order requiring Global Horizons to make whole Marut Kongpia ("Kongpia"), and similarly situated individuals, through backpay with prejudgment interest, reinstatement, and any other necessary affirmative relief; an order requiring Global Horizons to make whole Kongpia, and similarly situated individuals, through damages for pecuniary losses and non-pecuniary losses suffered as a result of Global Horizons's illegal employment practices; an award of punitive damages to Kongpia, and similarly situated individuals; any other appropriate relief; and an award to the EEOC of the costs of this action. [Id., Prayer for Relief at ¶¶ A-B, S, BB, KK, UU,4 CCC, LLL-MMM.]

Kongpia filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC ("Kongpia Charge") on April 18, 2006, alleging discrimination based on national origin and retaliation. [Concise Statement of Material Facts in Support of the Affirmative Defenses Motion, filed 11/1/13 (dkt. no. 597) ("Affirmative Defenses CSOF"), Decl. of Sue J. Noh & Exhs. in Supp. of Affirmative Defenses Motion("Noh Affirmative Defenses Decl."), Exh. 4 at 1.] In the Kongpia Charge, he stated, in pertinent part:

I. Since 2003, I have been harassed, subjected to different terms and conditions of employment, and intimidated in all aspects of employment with Global Horizons, due to my national origin (Thailand).
II. On many occasions, I objected the [sic] terms and conditions of employment but was ignored.
III. I believe I have been harassed, subjected to different terms and conditions of employment, and intimidated because of my national origin (Thailand) and retaliated against for engaging in a protected activity, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
IV. Further, since 2003, I believe that employees as a class have been discriminated against due to their national origin (Thailand) and retaliated against for engaging in a protected activity, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

[Id.] After conducting an investigation, the EEOC issued a determination letter dated August 19, 2010 to Kongpia and Global Horizons stating that the EEOC found reasonable cause to determine that Global Horizons had violated Title VII. [Noh Affirmative Defenses Decl., Exh. 8 at 1-2.] The EEOC issued a letter dated August 26, 2010 to Global Horizons, inviting Global Horizons to engage in conciliation efforts, [id., Exh. 9 at 1-4,] but Global Horizons did not respond [id. at 5-6 (letter dated 9/27/10 to counsel for Global Horizons)].

Global Horizons filed its answer to the Third Amended Complaint ("Answer") on January 23, 2013. [Dkt. no. 499.] Global Horizons's answer asserts forty-seven affirmative defenses, and the Twenty-First Defense is that "Plaintiff's, Charging Parties', Claimants', and class members' claims are barred by the doctrine of laches." [Id. at ¶ 112.] The Global Horizons Motion asks this Court to dismiss all claims against Global Horizons based on the doctrine of laches. [Global Horizons Motion at 1.]

In the Affirmative Defenses Motion, the EEOC seeks summary judgment as to several of Global Horizons's affirmative defenses. The EEOC argues that Global Horizons has not identified a genuine issue of material fact as to the merits of those affirmative defenses. In particular, as to Global Horizons's Twenty-First Defense, the EEOC argues that Global Horizons cannot establish the elements of a laches defense.

DISCUSSION
I. Admission of Material Facts

At the outset, this Court notes that Global Horizons failed to respond either to the EEOC's Affirmative Defenses Motion or to the EEOC's Affirmative Defenses CSOF. Global Horizons's Motion does address one of the affirmative defenses at issue in the EEOC's Affirmative Defenses Motion. This Court will therefore construe Global Horizons's Separate Statement ofUndisputed Material Facts in Support of the Global Horizons Motion, filed November 1, 2013 ("Global Horizons CSOF"), [dkt. no. 609,] as both the concise statement in support of the Global Horizons Motion and the response to the EEOC's Affirmative Defenses CSOF. The EEOC did not submit a response to the Global Horizons CSOF.

Local Rule 56.1(g) states: "For purposes of a motion for summary judgment, material facts set forth in the moving party's concise statement will be deemed admitted unless controverted by a separate concise statement of the opposing party." Thus, with the exception of the statements of fact in the Affirmative Defenses CSOF that Global Horizons controverted in the Global Horizons CSOF, if any, this Court HEREBY DEEMS ADMITTED all of the statements of fact set forth in the EEOC's Affirmative Defenses CSOF. Similarly, this Court also DEEMS ADMITTED all statements of fact set forth in the Global Horizons CSOF, except those that are controverted by the EEOC's Affirmative Defenses CSOF.

II. Global Horizons Motion Regarding Laches Affirmative Defense

The sole argument that Global Horizons raises in its motion is that, under the circumstances of the case, this Court should dismiss all of the EEOC's claims against it based on the doctrine of laches. In conjunction with the allegations by Thai workers, the EEOC issued a subpoena dated April 20, 2006 toPranee Tubchumpol, who was with Global Horizons's human resources office. [Global Horizons CSOF at ¶ 1, Exh. A.5] The subpoena requested various documents, for the period "January 2003 to the present," including payroll and recruitment records for employees hired form outside of the United States. [Global Horizons CSOF, Exh. A at 3.] According to Global Horizons, it responded to the subpoena in full and cooperated with the EEOC's request to interview several Global Horizons employees. EEOC investigators conducted the interviews on August 22, 2006. [Id., Exh. M at 1-2 (summary of 2006 investigation in letter dated July 20, 2009 to the EEOC from in-house counsel for Global Horizons).] Global Horizons submitted a position statement addressing the charges of discrimination filed against Global Horizons. [Id., Exh. B (letter dated 6/30/06 to the EEOC from counsel for Global Horizons).]

Global Horizons emphasizes that, in 2006, in a matter unrelated to the EEOC's investigation, the United States Department of Labor ("DOL") revoked Global Horizons's H-2A license, effectively...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT