864 F. Supp. 2d 965
D. Haw.2012Background
- Plaintiff Elizabeth-Ann Motoyama, proceeding pro se, filed a Title VII retaliation, ADA discrimination, and Equal Protection claim against the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) and its director in 2011.
- Plaintiff was hired Sept. 18, 2007 as an EEO/OCR specialist and went on medical leave Oct. 2007–Jan. 2008 due to injuries impairing mobility.
- Plaintiff sought multiple accommodations (parking near her office, ADA-accessible restrooms, flex time) in 2008–2009 and was approved for some accommodations (parking August 2008; flex time 2008; desk accommodations February 2009).
- HDOT conducted a multifactored investigation into Plaintiff’s numerous internal complaints; the investigation concluded many complaints lacked evidence and four co-workers counter-complaints against Plaintiff were sustained.
- In March 2009 Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave; in August 2009 she was terminated for misconduct; she later filed EEOC charges (March 2009 and August 2009) and the suit followed.
- HDOT asserts sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and that Title I of the ADA is barred; the court grants summary judgment for Defendants on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII retaliation protected activity and causation | Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by investigating complaints and filing EEOC charges | Investigations were part of Plaintiff’s job and did not constitute protected activity; no unlawful discrimination shown | No Title VII retaliation claim; no cognizable protected activity or causal link. |
| Adverse actions against Plaintiff for Title VII retaliation | Termination and administrative leave were retaliatory | Actions were petty or pretextual, not materially adverse; termination for misconduct | Termination and leave not sufficiently adverse to support retaliation claim. |
| ADA sovereign immunity and Title II applicability | HDOT engaged in disability discrimination; seeks relief under ADA | Title I barred by Eleventh Amendment; Title II applies to public services, not employment; sovereign immunity in Title II avenues preserved | Title I claims barred; Title II claims do not apply to employment; sovereign immunity forecloses monetary relief. |
| ADA retaliation against Okimoto and Ex Parte Young relief | Okimoto's actions violated ADA retaliation; seeks injunctive relief | Past actions; Ex parte Young allows prospective relief for ongoing violations only; no ongoing violation here | Okimoto claims for prospective relief rejected; no ongoing federal violation established. |
| Equal Protection and § 1983 against HDOT | Disparate treatment due to disability and role as EEO specialist | No direct constitutional claim; Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 claims against HDOT | Direct constitutional claim dismissed; § 1983 against HDOT barred by Eleventh Amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Pima Cmty. Coll., 83 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 1996) (opposition protection requires reasonable belief of unlawful practice)
- Smith v. Singer Co., 650 F.2d 214 (9th Cir. 1981) (protective scope of § 2000e-3(a) limits protected activity)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (S. Ct. 2006) (material adversity required for retaliation claims)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (burden-shifting framework for pretext evaluations)
- Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) (title I ADA sovereign immunity limits abrogation)
- Phiffer v. Columbia River Correctional Inst., 384 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2004) (valid abrogation under Title II for Fourteenth Amendment violations)
- Zimmerman v. Or. Dep’t of Justice, 170 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 1999) (Title II not applicable to employment claims)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (arm of the state and § 1983 immunity principles)
- Doe v. Lawrence Livermore Nat’l Lab., 131 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 1997) (continuing violation concept for prospective relief)