938 F. Supp. 2d 1000
D. Haw.2013Background
- Lalau is a Samoan male over 40 who worked for the Honolulu Liquor Commission from 2007 as a liquor investigator and, briefly, as acting supervisor starting December 12, 2007.
- In March 2008, a coworker (Remotigue) complained Lalau belittled him, and Lalau later returned to investigator duties in April 2008; City claims this revert was due to the ordinary end of a temporary assignment, while Lalau alleges retaliation for uncovering misconduct and for refusing to falsify Daily Activity Reports.
- Following his return, Lalau asserts he was harassed, excluded from meetings, and accused of falsifying reports; he alleges comments about him being a “typical Samoan” and about being replaced by a younger person.
- In July 2008 Lalau received a disciplinary warning for conduct with Remotigue; he contends he was then excluded from firearms training and other opportunities, with disputes over training attendance.
- Lalau submitted a late July 2008 letter to Waterhouse alleging a hostile work environment and referencing the ethnic-background remark; in August 2008 he was placed on administrative leave and investigated, remaining on leave until June 29, 2010.
- He filed a charge with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission on September 3, 2008 alleging national origin and age discrimination and retaliation; the action was removed to federal court, with the City contesting exhaustion and timeliness of related claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lalau can pursue national origin and age discrimination at summary judgment | Lalau relies on a single discriminatory comment by decisionmakers to show discriminatory animus | City contends no or insufficient evidence of discrimination and proper use of framework | Disputed; questions of fact preclude summary judgment on national origin and age claims |
| Whether Lalau may proceed with a hostile work environment claim | Lalau asserts pervasive hostility based on national origin/age | No evidence the workplace was pervasively hostile toward protected classes | Hostile environment claims granted summary judgment to City |
| Whether Lalau’s retaliation claims survive | Discriminatory comments and retaliation for reporting misconduct; protected activity caused adverse actions | No causal link between protected activity and adverse actions; timing insufficient | Retaliation claims dismissed summary judgment for City |
| Whether Count IV WPA claim is time-barred or exhausted | WPA claim intertwined with retaliation; exhaustion debated but timeliness important | WPA exhausted or timely; time-barred or failed to allege causation | WPA claim deemed time-barred; summary judgment for City |
Key Cases Cited
- Dominguez-Curry v. Nev. Transp. Dep't, 424 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2005) (single discriminatory comment can preclude summary judgment)
- Dominguez-Curry v. Nev. Transp. Dep’t, 424 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2005) (pretext evidence may be circumstantial yet sufficient)
- Davis v. Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2008) (circumstantial evidence can support discrimination finding; specific/substantial standard not always required)
- Costa v. Desert Palace, Inc., 299 F.3d 838 (9th Cir. 2002) (circumstantial and direct evidence treated alike for summary judgment)
- McGinest v. GTE Service Corp., 360 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (emphasizes flexibility of proving discrimination without strict McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (discriminatory motivation can be inferred from employee's credible testimony)