317 P.3d 1
Haw.2013Background
- Petitioners Eric Minton and Richard Stanley (stagehands and union members) worked major events at City-owned venues (Blaisdell Center and Waikiki Shell); most large productions in Honolulu use those venues.
- After sound problems and disputes (including interactions with the mayor’s brother) at a charity concert featuring the mayor (Aug. 18, 2007), promoter complaints prompted DES officials to investigate.
- DES Director Quintal, based on an internal inquiry (which did not directly interview Petitioners or view the full performance), sent a letter banning Minton and Stanley from working at Blaisdell and Waikiki Shell.
- Petitioners received little or no direct notice of the allegations (other than general inquiries/emails about technical problems) and were not afforded a hearing before the ban; the union attempted to respond but the ban became effective immediately.
- Petitioners sued the City and DES officials, alleging due process violations and tortious interference with prospective business; trial court ruled for Respondents, ICA affirmed. The Hawai‘i Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Minton (Plaintiffs’) Argument | Quintal/City (Defendants’) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Authority to ban stagehands from City facilities | City lacked explicit statutory authority to override private hiring decisions; ban exceeded authority to “operate and maintain” facilities | DES director has inherent authority under RCCCH § 6-702 to exclude persons as part of operating/maintaining venues | City has authority to exclude persons incident to facility management, but that authority is limited by constitutional constraints (see due process holding) |
| 2. Did the ban implicate a protected liberty interest? | Ban effectively prevented Petitioners from practicing their profession because most large shows occur at City venues; loss was more than one-job nonrenewal | Petitioners remained free to work elsewhere; loss of access to one set of venues doesn’t implicate liberty | Petitioners established a cognizable liberty interest: the ban de facto foreclosed employment opportunities and collateral privileges necessary to their trade |
| 3. Was procedural due process satisfied (notice/hearing)? | No: Petitioners were not notified of the factual basis (customer service/professionalism allegations) nor given an opportunity to be heard before the deprivation | Yes: union involvement and correspondence supplied notice and opportunity; action concerned at-will, non‑City employees so little process was needed | No: City failed to provide notice of the real allegations or a meaningful chance to rebut; due process (notice + opportunity to be heard) was required and was not afforded |
| 4. Tortious interference with prospective business advantage | The ban knowingly and wrongfully interfered with Petitioners’ relationships with producers (e.g., Lion King, HPU, HSTA, Catholic Schools), causing provable lost earnings | Denial of access was a lawful exercise of facility management authority; Petitioners’ claimed losses were speculative | Petitioners proved the elements of tortious interference (prospective relationships, City knowledge, intentional wrongful interference, causation, damages); remand for damages calculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (right to engage in common occupations is fundamental)
- Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (freedom to pursue chosen occupation is protected)
- Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474 (government revocation of credentials that severely limit employment triggers due process protections)
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (nonrenewal of nontenured employment does not automatically trigger liberty interest)
- Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886 (loss of access to a single site does not necessarily impair the right to pursue trade)
- Nakamoto v. Fasi, 64 Haw. 17, 635 P.2d 946 (City may adopt reasonable rules for use of its premises but cannot impose conditions violating constitutional rights)
- Silver v. Castle Mem’l Hosp., 53 Haw. 475, 497 P.2d 564 (doctor denied hospital privileges at a public facility is entitled to procedural due process)
- Haw. Med. Ass’n v. Haw. Med. Serv. Ass’n, 113 Hawai‘i 77, 148 P.3d 1179 (elements of tortious interference with prospective business advantage)
- Taylor v. Resolution Trust Corp., 56 F.3d 1497 (scope of government action that effectively forecloses future employment determines whether liberty interest is implicated)