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

• Decision Date: 11 July 2019
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 17-00371 SOM-WRP
• Citation: 400 F.Supp.3d 1023
• Parties: U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. MJC, INC.; GAC Auto Group, Inc. dba Cutter Mazda of Honolulu; and Does 1-10 Inclusive, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

400 F.Supp.3d 1023

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,

v.MJC, INC.; GAC Auto Group, Inc. dba Cutter Mazda of Honolulu; and Does 1-10 Inclusive, Defendants.

Civ. No. 17-00371 SOM-WRP

United States District Court, D. Hawai‘i.

Signed July 11, 2019

Anna Y. Park, Nakkisa Akhavan, Natalie Nardecchia, Rumduol Vuong, Sue J. Noh, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Los Angeles Los Angeles District Office Los Angeles, CA, Eric Yau, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Honolulu Local Office, Honolulu, HI, Rita Byrnes Kittle, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Denver Field Office, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff.

Joachim P. Cox, Kamala S. Haake, Cox Fricke, a Limited Liability Law Partnership LLP, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants.

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Susan Oki Mollway, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION.

Ryan Vicari, who is deaf, applied for a detailer position at Defendant GAC Auto Group, Inc. dba Cutter Mazda of Honolulu ("Cutter Mazda"). Cutter Mazda's Assistant Service Manager, Guy Tsurumaki, interviewed Vicari but did not hire him, citing safety concerns relating to his deafness. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed suit on Vicari's behalf, complaining that Cutter Mazda and the owner of Cutter Mazda, Defendant MJC, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"), had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by refusing to hire Vicari because he was deaf.

Before the court are competing motions for summary judgment filed by the EEOC and Defendants. ECF Nos. 91, 93. The EEOC argues that the court should grant summary judgment in its favor with respect to its ADA claims and four of Defendants' defenses. Defendants argue that summary judgment should be granted in its favor because no detailer position was available at the time of Vicari's job interview and because Tsurumaki is not a "supervisor" for purposes of imputing liability to Defendants. Defendants also request that the case be stayed because the EEOC allegedly failed to notify Defendants during conciliation that Vicari has a cochlear implant

.

Concluding that several factual disputes remain for trial, the court does not grant either summary judgment motion in full. However, the court grants the EEOC's motion to the extent it challenges the defenses that Vicari posed a direct threat to the health and safety of himself and others, that the EEOC's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and that the EEOC failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. Finally, the court denies Defendants' request for a stay; Defendants fail to demonstrate that the EEOC's conciliation efforts were legally deficient.

II. BACKGROUND.

A. Factual Background.

Vicari has been deaf since he was very young. ECF No. 94-2, PageID # 1168. On June 24, 2015, he submitted a job application at the Cutter Mazda car dealership. ECF No. 94-3. In the portion of the application labeled "Position for which you are applying," Vicari wrote "Detailing." See id. , PageID # 1175.

That day, Guy Tsurumaki, Assistant Service Manager at Cutter Mazda, interviewed Vicari in his office. Vicari was accompanied by his grandmother, Patricia Vicari ("Patricia"). ECF No. 94-5, PageID #s 1197, 1226. Conducting initial interviews of applicants and making hiring recommendations to the Service Manager were part of Tsurumaki's job. The Service Manager usually adopted his recommendations. Id. at 1198-1201.

The interview of Vicari lasted between five and ten minutes. ECF No. 94-5, PageID # 1225; ECF No. 94-2, PageID # 1170. Tsurumaki noted that Vicari was applying for a detailer position. ECF No. 94-5, PageID # 1226. Tsurumaki contends that he told Vicari and Patricia that Cutter Mazda did not have any detailer position open, but that there was a lot attendant position open. ECF No. 94-5, PageID #s 1226-27. Vicari has a different recollection; he says he was never told that he was being interviewed for a lot attendant position. ECF No. 131-13, PageID # 2094. Patricia recalls that Tsurumaki discussed "detailing" with Vicari. ECF No. 131-8, PageID #s 2030, 2035.

During the interview, Patricia told Tsurumaki that Vicari was deaf but could read lips. ECF No. 94-5, PageID # 1227. Tsurumaki then told Patricia and Vicari that the movement of cars around the lot could be unsafe for Vicari. Id. at 1231-33. Tsurumaki suggested that Vicari consider a position outside of the car dealership industry given the potential safety concerns. Id. at 1231-33. According to Vicari and Patricia, Patricia told Tsurumaki that Vicari wears a cochlear implant

, and Vicari showed Tsurumaki the implant. ECF No. 131-8, PageID #s 2032-35; ECF No. 94-4, PageID # 1187. Tsurumaki says he was not told about the cochlear implant, although he was told that Vicari had a driver's license and could drive. ECF No. 94-5, PageID # 1225.

The interview ended without Tsurumaki's determining whether Vicari qualified for the lot attendant position. ECF No. 94-5, PageID #s 1233-35; ECF No. 94-2, PageID # 1171. Tsurumaki did not discuss Vicari's interview with Cutter Mazda's Service Manager, Alan Edwards, or with MJC Inc.'s Human Resources Manager, Kaylene Remata. ECF No. 92-6, PageID #s 985-86; ECF No. 92-20, PageID #s 1087-88.

The detailer job description states that detailers are responsible for cleaning and preparing the interior and exterior of new and used vehicles for sale. ECF No. 94-9, PageID # 1266. Tsurumaki explained that detailers wash, vacuum, and wax cars, and drive cars around within the lot. ECF No. 94-5, PageID #s 1204-05. Jefferson Lucio, a former detailer at Cutter Mazda, stated that detailers are trained, their duties require primarily physical manpower, and the only machinery that they use is a vacuum cleaner. ECF No. 94-10, PageID #s 1269-71.

Lot attendants are divided into three shifts: openers, main shuttles, and closers. ECF No. 94-12; ECF No. 94-5, PageID #s 1206-07. An opener is responsible for opening the gates, cleaning the service areas, taking out the trash, and driving vehicles to an area designated for service cars. ECF No. 94-5, PageID # 1208; ECF No. 94-12, PageID # 1276. A main shuttle drives a shuttle that takes customers to and from their jobs throughout the day, makes sure that the shuttles are clean, and keeps the shuttles filled with gas. ECF No. 94-5, PageID #s 1210-12; ECF No. 94-12, PageID # 1277. A closer locks the cars and the gates, ensures that keys are safely stored, empties rubbish, washes and cleans vehicles, and moves vehicles within the lot. ECF No. 94-5, PageID #s 1213-15.

Lot attendants primarily communicate with each other and other workers at the dealership by two-way radio. ECF No. 133-4, PageID # 2254. For example, lot attendants use the two-way radio to communicate regarding customer pickups. ECF No. 133-4, PageID # 2256; ECF No. 133-6, PageID #s 2295-98. The job descriptions for the opener and main shuttle mention the use of a two-way radio. ECF No. 94-12, PageID #s 1276-77. The job descriptions of all lot attendant shifts, including the closer, state that lot attendants are responsible for "return[ing] [two-way] radio[s] onto [the] charging station." Id. at 1276-78. Lot attendants also communicate in person, by cell phone, and by car horn. ECF No. 94-5, PageID # 1218.

Vicari is unable to use a two-way radio. ECF No. 133-15, PageID # 2335 ("A radio is something I can't talk on and hear."). He often communicates via text messaging. Id.

At the time of Vicari's interview, Defendants had an anti-discrimination policy. ECF No. 92-20, PageID #s 1063-64, 1090-91. Defendants were providing annual training on harassment and discrimination to all employees. ECF No. 92-20, PageID #s 1066-69. The most recent harassment and discrimination training before Vicari's interview was in October 2014. Tsurumaki attended that. ECF No. 92-6, PageID # 989; ECF No. 92-20, PageID # 1074.

Tsurumaki's typical interview process involved going over in detail a job description with an applicant and asking the applicant if he or she can perform the duties listed in the job description. ECF No. 94-5, PageID # 1202. Tsurumaki did not go through the lot attendant job description with Vicari, have Vicari drive around the lot, or have Vicari test the two-way radio. Id. at 1236-37; ECF No. 94-6, PageID # 1252.

Tsurumaki told Vicari that his application would be kept on file. ECF No. 94-6, PageID # 1251 (Defendants' responses to the EEOC's requests for admissions). Cutter Mazda had at least one detailer position available between July 14, 2015, and August 3, 2015. Id. at 1252. Defendants did not inform Vicari that a detailer position was available during this time. Id. at 1253. Cutter Mazda hired two individuals for detailer positions that were available on August 3, 2015. Neither individual had a hearing impairment. Id. at 1252.¹

Vicari later applied for and got a janitor/custodian position with Network Enterprises, Inc. The responsibilities of the janitor/custodian position include cleaning and supplying buildings, as well as driving company vehicles to work sites. ECF No. 94-11, PageID # 1275. Vicari passed a pre-employment physical exam and was found capable of performing the work required for that position. ECF No. 94-8, PageID # 1258.

B. Procedural Background.

On August 4, 2015, Vicari submitted to the EEOC a Charge of Discrimination against Cutter Mazda ("Charge"), stating:

I. On June 24, 2015, I applied for a position as Auto Detailer with Respondent. On that same day, I met with Assistant Manager, Guy Tsurumaki, who told me that I could not be hired because I am deaf. He also told me that I would be a liability and that I should "look for another field."

II. I was told that I was not hired because of my disability.

III. I believe I have been discriminated against because of my disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of

...