You v. Longs Drugs Stores California, LLC, 937 F. Supp. 2d 1237

Plaintiff Tammy You sues Longs Drugs Stores California, LLC and supervisor McKeown for race, sex, age, disability, and national origin discrimination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; also seeks damages, costs, and fees.
You was hired June 2010 at Kaneohe store by Roy Matsuura; Kanda was hired as a co-worker; You alleges McKeown favored Kanda in training and overtime and disciplined You
You reported harassment and training deficiencies to Longs ethics line in Sept. 2010; later filed EEOC/HCRC charges in Dec. 2010 alleging discrimination and retaliation
You’s May 2011 sale of PSE without proper identification violated policy; she was terminated May 27, 2011 for violations of the PSE policy (not raised in initial charge)
The court grants summary judgment, finding inadequate exhaustion for some claims, and rejects most disparate treatment, retaliation, and whistleblower claims; IIED claim against McKeown analyzed and found insufficient for outrages; nationwide and Hawaii law standards applied
The opinion analyzes McDonnell Douglas framework for Title VII, ADA, ADEA, and Hawaii §378-2 claims; discusses the relation between exhaustion, causation, and whether actions were actionable as adverse employment actions or discrimination

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion of administrative remedies for asserted claims	You exhausted relevant claims via EEOC/HCRC	Many claims not properly exhausted; scope limited to exhausted allegations	Exhaustion deficient for several unexhausted claims; some exhausted claims do not cover later events; court limits claims to exhausted ones
Viability of remaining disparate treatment claims	You asserts race, sex, national origin, and disability discrimination; some conduct shows adverse actions	No valid prima facie case; no similarly situated comparators; no evidence of discriminatory motive	Counts I and V (race/sex/national origin) fail; Count II/ V (disability) fail under ADA/HRS 378-2 due to lack of perceptible disability and comparators
Retaliation claim sufficiency	You engaged in protected activity (ethics line, charges) and faced adverse actions	No close temporal link or causal connection; no properly exhausted retaliation claim	No viable retaliation claim due to lack of exhaustion and lack of causal nexus
Whistleblower claim under Hawaii WPA 378-62	Claim mirrors retaliation; exhausted or should be allowed to proceed	Unclear jurisdictional exhaustion; merits show no causal link	Whistleblower claim not viable on merits; exhaustion issue unresolved but merits fail
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress	McKeown’s conduct was outrageous	Conduct not outrageous as a matter of law	IIED claim fails; no outrageous conduct established

Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (U.S. 2003) (applies McDonnell Douglas-like framework to discrimination claims)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (context for summary judgment and avoiding mere speculation)
B.K.B. v. Maui Police Department, 276 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002) (scope of administrative exhaustion; related claims must be like or reasonably related)
Albano v. Schering-Plough Corp., 912 F.2d 384 (9th Cir. 1990) (equitable futility through EEOC, but not a general exception to exhaustion)
Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 1996) (causation and temporal proximity in retaliation claims)
Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2000) (adverse action sufficient to deter protected activity under EEOC guidelines)
Albano v. Schering-Plough Corp., 912 F.2d 384 (9th Cir. 1990) (constructive discharge not inherently related to other discrimination claims)