Title: Aloha Islandair, Inc. v. Hoshijo

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

'**4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
wo. 24561

wr sua

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

Ooo

ALOHA ISLANDAIR, INC., Appellant~Appellee/Cross~Appe! ai

he oe

F
fp
c

en)

WILLIAM D. HOSHIJO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
WAWAI'T CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION; and BRUCE PIED, Appellees-
‘Appellants/Cross-Appellees

ee

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NO. 0-1-3779)

DL ‘HON ORDER
(gy: Moon, C.J-, Levinson, Nakayama, and Duffy, JJ.
‘and Acoba, J., dissenting)

Appellees-Appellants/Cross-Appellees Bruce Pied (Pied)
and William D. Hoshijo (Hoshijo)’ appeal from the August 22, 2002

judgment of the circuit court of the first circuit, the Honorable

Eden Elizabeth Hifo presiding, reversing the November 22, 2000
final decision and order of the Hawai'i Civil Rights Commission
(ucRC or Comission), which found that Appellant-Appellee/Cross~
Appellant Aloha Islendaiz, Inc. (Island Air) engaged in “unlawful
discriminatory practices,” in violation of Hawai'i Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 378-2(1) (A) (Supp. 2000), by denying Pied
employment on the basis of his monocular vision in 1980 and 1991.
on appeal, Pied and Hoshijo present the following
questions: (1) whether Pied timely challenged alleged
discriminatory practices that occurred more than 180 days before
2 charge of discrimination was filed; (2) whether the circuit
court, in reviewing the HCRC's findings of fact de nove, was
required to defer to the Commission's findings on witness

Hoshijo appears in his offices
the Hawai'i Civil Rignes Commission

as executive director of

 

capacit

 
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

credibility; (3) whether, under the statutory definition of
“disability” found in HRS § 378-1, mitigating measures may be
considered when examining the extent to which an individual's
physical or mental impairment limits him or her in a major life
activity: (4) whether Island Air's admissions in @ prior federal
court proceeding involving the same parties are binding and
entitled to preclusive effect in the instant case; (5) whether,

upon the plaintiff's establishment of a prima facie case of

 

discrimination based on disparate treatment, Hawai'i Rules of
Evidence (HRE) Rule 304 shifts the burden of persuasion to the
defendant to prove that non-discriminatory reasons motivated the
challenged employment action? and (6) whether the circuit court
erred in reversing the HCRC’s determination that Island Air
unlawfully denied Pied employment because he was (a) disabled in
fact, and (b) regarded by Island Air as being disabled. Pied and
Hoshijo request that the HCRC’s final decision and order be
affirmed in its entirety. In its cross-appeal, Island Air argues
that: (1) the circuit court’s finding of fact that Island Air
maintained a policy against hiring monocular pilots between 1969
and 1991 was clearly erroneous; and (2) the court denied Island
Air its constitutional right to have a jury determine common law
damages.

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we hold that Island
Air was improperly denied its constitutional right to a jury
trial inasmuch as we have previously held that “a respondent who
appeals a final order of the HCRC pursuant to HRS § 368-16, is

entitled to a jury trial on any claims that form the basis of an
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

award of common law damages by the HCRC.” SCI Management Corp.
wa Sims, 101 Hawai'i 438, 452, 71 P.3d 389, 403 (2003).7
‘Therefore,

IT 18 HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment from which the

 

appeal is taken is vacated and the case remanded for jury trial.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, January 26, 2006.
on the briefs:

John Ishihara of the

Hawaii Civil Rights Conmission
for appellee-appellant/cross~

appellee William D. Hoshijo

David F. Simons and Matthew J. LEHeErtse—

Viola of Simons & Viola for

appellee-appel lant /cross-appellee Neuse tu

Richard M. Rand and Tamara M

Gerrard of Torkildson Katz, Gonna edge

Fonseca, Jaffe, Moore &
Hetherington and James Kawashima,
Michael A. Lorusso and Kristine N.
Kinaka of Watanabe Ing &
Kavashima for appellant
appellee/cross~appel lant

Aloha Islandair, Inc.

 

 

 

2 AIL parties should be advised that, as stated in the dissent, the
views expressed ere those of Justice Acoba and do not necessarily reflect the
Views cf other menbere of this court. Dissent at