N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
TAM M Y P. YOU, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. LONGS DR

UG STORE S C ALIFOR

NIA LLC , doing busine ss a s Long Drugs; THOM AS M C KEOW

N ; JOHN DOES 1- 10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE C ORPOR ATIONS 1-10; DOE UNINC ORPOR

ATED ASSOC IATIONS, INC LUDING PAR TNER SHIP 1 THR OUGH 10, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-15786 DC No. 1:11 c v -0530 SOM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii Susa n Oki M ollwa

y , C h i e f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2015 * * Honolulu Ha

wa ii 

# FIL E D MAR 02 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2)(C ).B e fore : TASHIM A , N.R . SM ITH, a nd FR IEDLAND, C irc u it Judge s. Tam m y P. You (“ Tam

m y ” 1 ) a ppe a ls from the distric t c o urt’ s sum m a ry judgm e nt a

nd a ward of c osts in he r e m

ploy m e nt disc rim ination a c tion a ga inst he r form e r e m

p loy e r Longs Drug Store s C a lifornia LLC and form e r supe rvisor Thom a s M c Ke o wn (toge the r “ De fe nda nts” ). Tam m y brought c la im s of unla

w ful disc rim ination on the ba sis of he r ra c e , anc e stry , nationa l origin, se x, a ge , a nd pe rc e i ve d disa

bility , a s we l l a s for
re ta lia tion a nd inte ntiona l inflic tion of e m otiona l distre s s. The distric t c o urt he ld that Tam m y ha d fa ile d to e xha

ust he r a d m i nistra tive re m e die s for he r c la im s ba se d on the inc ide nts (inc luding he r te rm ination) tha t we re not inc lude d

in a n a dm inistra

tive c om pla int Ta m m y ha d file d with the Equa l Em p loy m e nt Opportunity

C om m i s sion a nd the Ha wa i i C i vil Rights C om

m ission se ve ra l m onths
e arlie r. The c ourt ne xt he ld tha t Ta m m y ha d fa ile d

to e sta b lish a prim a fa c e c a se on he r re m a ining c la im s. The c ourt a lso a warde d c osts to De fe nda

nts, a s the pre v a i ling pa

rtie s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w the gran t of
sum m ary judgm e nt de novo, Haw n v . Ex e c . J e t Mgmt., Inc
. , 615 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th C ir. 2010), a

n d the award of c o sts for a n a buse of disc re tion, C

hampion

1 W e re fe r to pla intiff-a ppe lla nt by he r give n na

m e , “ Tam m y ,” in orde r to a v oid a ny c onfusion tha

t m ight a rise by re fe rring to he r by

he r surna m e , “ You,” whic h is ide n tic a l to thepe rsona l pronoun, “y o u.” 2Produc e

, Inc . v . Ruby

Robinson C

o. , 342 F.3d 1016, 1020 (9th C ir. 2003). W e a ffirm
. 1. Ea c h of the fe de ra l a nd Ha wa ii e m p loy m e nt disc rim inat ion sta

t ute s unde rly ing se ve ra l of Ta

m m y ’ s c la im s re quire s a

pla intiff to e xha

ust a dm inistra

tive
re m e die s be fore filing a

c ivil a c tion a ga inst a

n e m ploy e r for unla

wful disc rim ination. Ta

m m y ’ s a dm i nistra

tive c om pla int de sc ribe d only

c onfronta

tiona l
e nc ounte rs with he r supe rvisors during her tra i ning pe riod; it did not inc lude he r te rm ination or othe r e nc o unte rs tha t took pla c e se v e ra l m onths la te r. Furthe rm ore , the t e rm ination a

nd othe r non-inc lude d e ve nts we re not re a s ona bly re late d to the
e ve nts she de sc ribe d in he r a dm inistra tive c om pla i nt. Se e B.K

.B. v . Maui Polic e De p’t , 276 F.3d 1091, 1100 (9th C ir. 2002), as ame nde d (“ Alle gations of disc rim ination not inc lude d in the pla i ntiff’ s a dm inistra tive c h arge m a

y not be
c onside re d by

a fe de ra l c ourt unle ss the ne w c la im s a re like or re a sona

bly re late d to the a lle gations c onta ine d in the EEOC c ha rge .” (inte rna l quota

tion m arks
om i tte d)). Ac c ordingly , Tam m y did not e xha

ust he r a dm inistra

tive re m e die s with
re ga rd to he r non-inc lude d c la im s, a s she wa s re quire d to do in order to bring
e m ploy m e nt disc rim ination c l a im s in c ourt. 2. The distric t c ourt did not err in holding tha t Ta m m y fa i le d to m e e t he r burde n of e sta blishing a prim a fa c ie c a se for the c la im s of e m ploy m e nt disc rim ination a

nd re ta l iation tha

t we re inc lude d in he r a dm inistra tive c om p la int.
3Tam

m y did not introduc e suffic ie nt e vide nc e showing tha t the re e xists a

ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r De fe nda nts’ a c tions we re a dve rse e m ploy m e nt
a c tions, or whe the r De fe nda nts pe rc e ive d tha

t she ha d a disa

bility and/or te rm inate d he r for unla

wfully disc rim inat ory

or re ta lia tory re a s ons. Additiona

lly , Tam m y fa ile d to e sta

b l ish a prima fac iec a se of inte ntiona l inflic tion of e m otiona l distre s s be c a

use the c onduc t she c om

pla ine d of c annot be c ha

ra c te riz e d a s

“ outra ge ous,” “ be y ond a ll bounds of de c e nc y ,” or “ utte rly intole ra ble in a c iviliz e d
c om m unity .” Ross v . Stouffe r Hote l C o. , 879 P.2d 1037, 1048 n.12 (Ha w. 1994) (quoting Re sta

t e m e n t (Se c ond) of Torts § 46 c m t. d (1965)). 3. The distric t c ourt’ s a ward of c osts for filing fe e s, witne ss fe e s, subpoe na c osts, a nd the printing of de

position tra

nsc ripts wa s pre sum

ptive ly pe rm issibleunde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 54(d)(1) a nd the Taxation of C osts sta t ute , 28 U.S.C . § 1920. Ta m m y fa ile d to show tha

t the award of $3,790.44 in c osts wa s unre a sona ble in light of her e m

ploy m e nt sta tus a n d fina nc ia l re sourc e s. She fa ile d to m ake any

e vide ntia ry showing of he r c urre nt e m ploy m e nt sta t us or he r fina

nc ia l c ondition. Se e Sav e Our Valle y v . Sound Transit , 335 F.3d 932, 946 (9th C ir. 2003) (holding tha t the losing pa

rty be ars the burde n of ove rc o m ing the pre sum p tion of a warding c osts to the pre v a i ling pa rty ) ; Stanle y v . Univ . of S. C

al. , 178 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th C ir. 1999) (“ [I] t is inc um be nt upon the losing pa

rty to de m onstra

te why the c osts should not be

awarde d.” ).
4• ! •

The judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt a n d its a ward of c osts a

re AFFIRM E D.

5