Case Title: Ricasa v. Hilton Hotels Corporation

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2005-07-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW UBRARY
*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION ***

 

No. 25968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'T

 

DOMINGO P. RICASA, Plaintiff-Appellant, 2° s =

vs. RF

=

HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION, 2 Delaware = 8
corporation, and HILTON HAWAIIAN VILLAGE, LLCZP =
‘2 Hawai'i Limited Liability Corporation, 3

Defendant s-Appellees,
and
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10; DOB PARTNERSHIPS 1-10;

DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; and OTHER DOE ENTITIES 1-10,
Defendants.

 

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NO. 01-1-2639)

SUMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy JJ.)

Plaintiff-appellant Domingo P. Ricasa appeals from the
first circuit court's June 16, 2003 final judgment in favor of
defendants-appellees Hilton Hotels Corporation and Hilton
Hawaiian Village, LLC (hereinafter collectively, Hilton].?
Ricasa’s single point of error is that the circuit court erred in
granting Hilton's second motion for summary judgment.

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the arguments advocated and the issues raised, we conclude that

the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of

 

‘The Honorable Dexter D. Del Rosario presided over this matter:
*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION ***

 

Hilton. Specifically, we hold that there are genuine issues of
material fact as to Ricasa’s claims for breach of implied
contract and retaliation. In Gonsalves v, Nissan Motor Com, in
Hawaii, Ltd, 100 Hawai'i 149, $8 P.34 1196 (2002), we dealt with
the issue of disclaimers and implied.contracts and held that a
disclaimer is valid if it is: “(1) . . . clear, conspicuous, and
understandable; (2) [dees not] contradict language in the
Jemplovee| manual; [and] (3) [does not) contradict subsequent
oral or written statements by the employer.” (emphasis added.)
100 Hawai" at 167-68, $8 P.3d at 1214-15. In this case, there
appears to be a contradiction between the disclaimer affirming
the ‘at will” status of Ricasa’s employment, and the Hilton
“Harassment-Free Workplace Policy” which provided that “[alny
employee who reports unlawful harassment or cooperates in the
investigation of a complaint will be protected from retaliatory
action” and that “[a]1l reports that you make will be fully
investigated.” The record shows that Ricasa reported alleged
unlawful harassment, and that there are genuine issues of
material fact as to whether Hilton fully investigated Ricasa’s
report, and whether Hilton’s termination of Ricasa was
retaliatory action. Sunmary judgment against Ricasa on this
record was thus inappropriate.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the circuit court’s June 16,

2003 final judgment is vacated and this case is remanded to the
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

 

first circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this

order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i,

on the briefs:

Shawn A. Luiz
for plaintiff-appellant
Domingo P. Ricasa

Robert S$. Katz

and Paul M. Saito

for defendants-appellees
Hilton Hotels Corporation and
Hilton Hawaiian Village, LLC

guly 25, 2005.