Vanhorn v. Hana Grp., Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 October 2013
• Docket Number: Civil No. 12–00215 JMS–KSC.
• Citation: 979 F.Supp.2d 1083
• Parties: Helen VANHORN, Plaintiff, v. The HANA GROUP, INC. d/b/a/ Hana Security Services, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

979 F.Supp.2d 1083

Helen VANHORN, Plaintiff,

v.The HANA GROUP, INC. d/b/a/ Hana Security Services, Defendant.

Civil No. 12–00215 JMS–KSC.

United States District Court, D. Hawai‘i.

Oct. 18, 2013.

Anthony F. Quan, Jr., Law Offices of Anthony “T.J.” Quan, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff.

Brad S. Miller, Cooper Bushelli & Morrison, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Helen E. VanHorn (“Plaintiff”), a former security officer at Joint Base Pearl Harbor–Hickam (“Pearl Harbor” or “the base”), asserts claims against her employer, The Hana Group, Inc. d/b/a Hana Security Services (“Defendant”), for race and disability discrimination and failure to provide reasonable accommodations, in violationof Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), and Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) Chapter 378.

Currently before the court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”). During the September 23, 2013 hearing, the court asked for clarification of the scope of Plaintiff's disability discrimination claims. Plaintiff's counsel stated affirmatively that the time period for which Plaintiff is alleging that Defendant failed to provide a reasonable accommodation is from early November 2010 to December 15, 2010. Accordingly, the court addresses only that time frame in connection with Plaintiff's disability discrimination claims. For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED as to the Title VII and HRS § 378–2 racial discrimination claims and DENIED as to the ADA and HRS § 378–2 disability discrimination claims.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a security officer from January 2008 until October 25, 2011. Doc. No. 49, Def.'s Concise Statement of Facts (“CSF”) ¶¶ 4, 35.¹ During Plaintiff's employment, Defendant provided armed security guards to Pearl Harbor. Doc. No. 49–1, Michael E. Rawlins Decl. ¶ 2.

1. Failure to Accommodate

Defendant's armed security guards were “responsible for controlling various access points to [the base],” and were “stationed at many different posts throughout the [base],” depending upon “the Navy's requirements and Defendant's staffing levels.” Id. ¶ 5. The “Armed Security Officer Job Description, applicable to all armed guards who worked at [Pearl Harbor],” described “the job duties, job requirements, physical requirements, and working conditions” for this position. Id. ¶¶ 3–4; Doc. No. 49–2, Def.'s Ex. A. Job requirements included passing annual weapons and training testing as well as an annual physical fitness assessment. Doc. No. 49–2, Def.'s Ex. A; Doc. No. 49–13, Def.'s Ex. L.

During the application process, “Plaintiff was made aware of some of the essential job requirements and functions—including that the physical requirements included regularly standing/walking and rarely sitting.” Doc. No. 49, Def.'s CSF ¶ 3; Doc. No. 49–3, Def.'s Ex. B. Defendant alleges that additional essential functions of the armed security officer job included:

performing identification checks and vehicle inspections; meeting physical fitness and weapons qualifications set by the Navy; being properly outfitted with the required duty belt and its equipment and weaponry; rotating among posts in accordance with the Navy's and [Defendant's] needs; and to remain standing at post armed, equipped, and prepared to deal with emergency situations and potential threats to base security.

Doc. No. 49, Def.'s CSF ¶ 5; Rawlins Decl. ¶¶ 6, 9–11, 17–18, 20–23.

Plaintiff disputes Defendant's characterization of “regularly standing/walking and rarely sitting,” or “remain standing at post” as essential job functions, alleging that “during the tenure of her employment with Defendant, [she] observed various armed security officers [employed by Defendant] perform functions, duties, and tasks outside of this description[, ... including] sitting for more than 50% of their shifts at sitting posts, in office positions, and as drivers.” Doc. No. 56, Pl.'s CSF ¶ 5; Doc. No. 55, Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n, VanHorn Decl. ¶ 5; see also Doc. No. 49–37, VanHorn Dep. at 249:19–25 (stating that at specific posts guards would “be either sitting pretty much the whole time observing with hardly anyone around. Or, [they'd] be sitting and then getting up and checking ID's as people ... come through the gate”); id. at 257:3–9 (“[I]n my history of three years of employment there ... not once at the sit down posts ... was there ever consistent traffic where you had to stand the entire time.”). Plaintiff further stated that Defendant allowed guards to sit during their shifts. Id. at 257:21–24 (confirming that Defendant allowed guards to “sit down between traffic coming at a given post”); see also id. at 250:7–10 (stating that neither Defendant nor Navy personnel ever told her that “it was inappropriate ... to sit at any post”). Plaintiff specifically identified “Ford Island, Sierra gate, [and] the Bravo gates” as “sitting posts.” Id. at 250:12–14.

On December 3, 2009, Plaintiff was injured while discharging a shotgun during her annual requalification assessment. Doc. No. 49, Def.'s CSF ¶ 15. Plaintiff continued to work and alleges that she gave verbal notification of her injury to her supervisor, Captain McNeal (“McNeal”), on November 8, 2010. Doc. No. 49–37, Def.'s Ex. 2, VanHorn Dep. at 221:5–222:4. Plaintiff provided a written report of her injury on November 10, 2010. Doc. No. 49, Def.'s CSF ¶ 15; Doc. No. 49–9, Def.'s Ex. H, Notification of Injury. On November 17, 2010, Plaintiff provided a doctor's note confirming that she was being treated for shoulder and back pain. Doc. No. 49–10, Def.'s Ex. I. And on or about that date, Plaintiff “began asking her supervisor, ... McNeal, to be able to sit on post and/or for special post assignments as an accommodation.” Doc. No. 49, Def.'s CSF ¶ 19. Plaintiff alleges that McNeal denied these requests. Id. ¶ 20.

Plaintiff further alleges that between November 8 and December 14, 2010, she told McNeal that she “was in pain,” “was under a doctor's care,” was “going to [begin] physical therapy [and would] be in a lot more pain than [she was in] already,” that she was “told by [her] doctor that [she would] need to take it [as] easy as possible when [she was] working,” and “asked for accommodations to be able to sit down.” Doc. No. 49–37, VanHorn Dep. at 224:19–20, 246:9–22. Plaintiff also stated that at least on one day, she “had so much pain, I had to stand, it was just horrible, unbelievable, and I had asked more than once, please don't put me on this post, I'm having a lot of pain today. You know, I would have been fine sitting, still in pain, but okay. Standing was just really hard.” Id. at 251:19–25. Plaintiff alleges that “during the period from November 2010 to December 2010,” she “was able to perform her job duties.” Doc. No. 55, VanHorn Decl. ¶ 15; see Doc. No. 49–37, VanHorn Dep. at 294:15–18 (“I could stand the entire time that I worked for [Defendant], and that would include ... November through the end of December.”).

Plaintiff further claims that McNeal refused to accept a note from Plaintiff's physical therapist, dated November 30, 2010. Doc. No. 49, Def.'s CSF ¶ 21. The note states that Plaintiff “is participating in physical therapy. It is recommended that she be able to sit, preferably with her back supported, during her shift.” Doc. No. 49–11, Def.'s Ex. J. On December 10, 2010, Plaintiff's doctor, Dr. Bruce S. Katsura, withheld certification for Plaintiff to participate in the annual requalification assessment “due to health concerns,” but stated that she was “capable of [the] non-physical component of testing (written portion).” Doc. 49–13, Def.'s Ex. L. Defendant did not work after December 15, 2010. From December 16, 2010 until October 22, 2011, Plaintiff was on medical leave.²

2. Racial Discrimination

Plaintiff alleges that she “was subject[ed] to a series of harassing, demeaning, and inappropriate incidents ... perpetrated by a number of non-white, local, Asian male security officers ... because [she] was the only Caucasian female in [her] group of approximately twenty officers.” Doc. No. 55, VanHorn Decl. ¶ 19. More specifically, one time during “2008 or 2009, unnamed co-workers allegedly made fun of Plaintiff about being from the mainland, and not being local.” Doc. No. 49, Def.'s CSF ¶ 6. Plaintiff appears to contradict her admission of this one incident by also stating that because of an accommodation to protect her from skin cancer,³ “other officers, during 2009 and 2010, would oftentimes refer to me as being from the mainland and not local, indirectly referring to me being Caucasian.” Doc. No. 55, VanHorn Decl. ¶ 21. In December of 2009, Dillon Lai (“Lai”) a co-worker, allegedly “harassed Plaintiff while on duty by not cooperating with her or acknowledging her, and by cutting in front of her in line.” Id. ¶ 7. On November 30, 2010, Brandon Swain (“Swain”), a co-worker, stated to Plaintiff that she was “the whitest one.” Id. ¶ 24. On December 14, 2010, and twice before, Matthew Quon (“Quon”), a co-worker, “allegedly commented to Plaintiff ... about her white skin.” Id. ¶ 26.

A number of incidents involve Brandon Liu (“Liu”), Plaintiff's immediate supervisor. Plaintiff alleges that during 2010, she was “repeatedly yelled at and demeaned by [Liu], a non-white, Asian male, in front of other security officers.” Doc. No. 55, VanHorn Decl. ¶ 20. On November 30, 2010, Liu “yelled at Plaintiff” about a “payroll discrepancy,” but Plaintiff admitted that “none of [his] yelling concerned or mentioned race.” Doc. No. 49, Def.'s CSF ¶ 13. Plaintiff alleges that Liu “often wrote false reports about her because of her race, and that supporting testimony for those reports was also false and motivated by...