NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-18-0000561

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

PALIKSRU BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

KONA COAST SHELLFISH, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee,

and

DOE PERSONS 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10;

DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; ROE "NON-PROFIT" CORPORATIONS

1-10, AND ROE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, 

Defendants 

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 3CC17100305K)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Nakasone, JJ.)

Plaintiff-Appellant Paliksru Brooks appeals from:

(1) the "Order Granting Defendant Kona Coast Shellfish, LLC's

Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Filed November 14,

2017, Filed January 29, 2018," entered by the Circuit Court of

the Third Circuit on March 23, 2018; and (2) the "Final Judgment"

in favor of Defendant-Appellee Kona Coast Shellfish, LLC entered

on June 25, 2018.1 For the reasons explained below, we vacate

the Order and the Judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Brooks filed a civil complaint against Kona Coast, his

former employer. He filed an Amended Complaint on November 14,

2017. Kona Coast filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)

1 The Honorable Melvin H. Fujino presided.

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000561

17-AUG-2021

07:46 AM

Dkt. 68 SO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

of the Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP).2 The motion was

heard on February 21, 2018. The circuit court orally granted the

motion. The Order was entered on March 23, 2018. The Judgment

was entered on June 25, 2018. This appeal followed.

A circuit court's ruling on an HRCP Rule 12(b) motion

to dismiss is reviewed de novo. Bank of Am., N.A. v. ReyesToledo, 143 Hawai#i 249, 256, 428 P.3d 761, 768 (2018). The

circuit court's stated reasons for its decision neither bind nor

restrict our appellate review.

[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a

claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can

prove no set of facts in support of [their] claim that would

entitle [them] to relief. The appellate court must

therefore view a plaintiff's complaint in a light most

favorable to [the plaintiff] in order to determine whether

the allegations contained therein could warrant relief under

any alternative theory. For this reason, in reviewing a

circuit court's order dismissing a complaint the appellate

court's consideration is strictly limited to the allegations

of the complaint, and the appellate court must deem those

allegations to be true.

Id. at 257, 428 P.3d at 769 (cleaned up) (emphasis added).

The notice-pleading standard governs in Hawai#i. 

Reyes-Toledo, 143 Hawai#i at 263, 428 P.3d at 775. HRCP Rule

8(a) states, in relevant part, that "[a] pleading which sets

forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief, and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief the

pleader seeks."

2 HRCP Rule 12 provides, in relevant part:

Rule 12. DEFENSES AND OBJECTIONS — WHEN AND HOW PRESENTED —

BY PLEADING OR MOTION — MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE

PLEADINGS.

. . . .

(b) How Presented. Every defense, in law or fact, to a

claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim,

counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be

asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is

required, except that the following defenses may at the

option of the pleader be made by motion: . . . (6) failure

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted[.]

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The Amended Complaint alleged that Brooks is

Micronesian-Kosraean and had worked for Kona Coast as an algae

technician since 2011. For purposes of our appellate review we

assume (but do not decide) that the following allegations

contained in the Amended Complaint are true:

10. [Brooks] belongs to the protected class of

individuals because of his ancestry and national origin

(i.e., Micronesian-Kosrae [sic]).

11. During his employment, [Brooks] was subjected to

a continuing course or pattern of discriminatory acts by

[Kona Coast]'s representatives, including its management

employees, that escalated in frequency and intensity,

intending to create a hostile work environment.

. . . .

14. [Brooks] would raise the algae, clean and

maintain the algae tanks. He took his job seriously and

because of his efforts he increased the production levels

and quality of algae being raised on site and through his

efforts of observation, trial and error, he resolved

persistent problems of poor algae production, die off and

contamination.

15. Often and during the calendar year of 2016,

[Brooks] worked seven (7) days a week without additional

compensation or overtime.

. . . .

24. . . . [Brooks]'s supervisors, [sic]

discriminated against [Brooks] by ridiculing him in front of

his co-workers, refused to acknowledge him for his work, and

refused to do anything when he raised his concerns and

complaints of discrimination and disparate treatment within

the company.

. . . .

27. In April of 2016, [Brooks] was told by [the Farm

Manager] that he was being promoted and would be given a

raise of $1.00 per hour.

28. In May of 2016, [Brooks]'s promotion and raise

was announced to his co-workers in a team meeting by [his

supervisor].

29. [Brooks] waited patiently for his promotion and

raise but he never received his promotion or raise until the

end of August of 2016, after [Brooks] had to ask [the Farm

Manager] what had happened to his promotion and raise.

30. [Brooks]'s promotion was a sham because it just

meant that in addition to maintaining and raising algae, he

would now be responsible for maintaining and raising clams.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

31. In August of 2016, [Brooks] told [the Farm

Manager] that his wages were unfair and that he was being

paid $2.00 an hour less that [sic] his co-worker[.] . . .

. . . .

39. [Brooks] complained about the disparate hourly

wage, bonuses and promotion, including but not limited to

[working through his 30-minute lunch period, but being

docked 30 minutes of overtime]. . . .

40. [Brooks] was subjected to overt workplace

discrimination by [his supervisor], including but not

limited to:

a. . . . [Brooks's supervisor] mocked and

humiliated [Brooks], in the presence of . . .

co-workers that [Brooks] couldn't speak "good

English." [Brooks] estimated [Brooks's supervisor]

did this over ten (10) times[.] . . .

. . . .

f. After having informed [Brooks] about his

raise and promotion, and announcing it to [Brooks]'s

co-workers, [Brooks's supervisor] deliberately and

intentionally withheld [Brooks]'s raise and promotion,

until [Brooks] had to make a complaint to the Farm

Manager[.]

g. [Brooks's supervisor] ridiculed and

humiliated [Brooks] in the presence of [Brooks]'s

co-workers, that he couldn't spell properly, because

someone misspelled the word "bucket" on the office

"Things to Buy" board. . . .

. . . .

41. . . . [Kona Coast's] Farm Manager and . . .

Human Resources Specialist, [sic] were aware of [Brooks]'s

concerns and complaints but did nothing about it [sic], no

investigation was conducted and [Kona Coast] did not take

any remedial action.

42. On or about January 5, 2017, [Brooks]'s level of

mistrust and stress resulting from [his supervisor]'s

discriminatory mistreatment and the refusal to act or

conduct any investigation into [Brooks]'s concerns and

complaints, was so severe and pervasive that [Brooks] could

no longer tolerate the workplace conditions and felt he had

no other choice but to resign and was constructively

discharged.

. . . .

45. [Brooks]'s supervisor and management employees

had a pattern and practice of discriminating against

[Brooks] due to his ancestry and national origin, i.e.,

Micronesian-Kosrae [sic], as previously alleged herein.

. . . .

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

55. [Kona Coast]'s actions were severe and pervasive

and created a hostile and abusive workplace environment,

which unreasonably interfered with [Brooks]'s work

performance as detailed, supra.

. . . .

61. [Brooks] is a member of a protected class

(Micronesian-Kosrae [sic]); similarly situated females and

males were treated differently than [Brooks] and disparate

treatment occurred because of [Brooks]'s ancestry and

national origin.

Count I alleged that Kona Coast discriminated against Brooks in

violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 378-2.3 Count II

alleged Kona Coast allowed Brooks to be subject to a hostile work

environment in violation of HRS § 378-2. Count III alleged that

Brooks was subject to disparate treatment based upon his ancestry

and national origin in violation of HRS § 378-2. Count IV,

titled "Wilful and Wanton Misconduct[,]" alleged that Kona Coast

intentionally injured Brooks. The Amended Complaint prays for

"general and special damages[,]" "reinstatement, back salary and

fringe benefits[,]" "front pay and accrued benefits[,]"

"compensatory damages," attorney's fees and costs, pre- and postjudgment interest, and "such other relief" as the court "may deem

just and proper."

Kona Coast argues that Brooks's Amended Complaint

failed to plead: that he was mocked and treated unequally because

of his race or ancestry; that the alleged misconduct relating to

overtime, bonuses, hourly raises, and promotions was severe or

pervasive; or that Brooks was constructively discharged because

of discrimination based on race or ancestry. However, "HRCP Rule

3 HRS § 378-2 (2015), provides, in relevant part:

§ 378-2 Discriminatory practices made unlawful; offenses

defined. (a) It shall be an unlawful discriminatory

practice:

(1) Because of race, . . . [or] ancestry[:]

(A) For any employer to . . .

discriminate against any individual

in compensation or in the terms,

conditions, or privileges of

employment[.]

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

8(a)(1) does not require the pleading of facts[.]" Reyes-Toledo,

143 Hawai#i at 258, 428 P.3d at 770 (citation omitted). Compare

HRCP Rule 8(a)(1) with HRCP Rule 9(c) ("In pleading the

performance or occurrence of conditions precedent, it is

sufficient to aver generally that all conditions precedent have

been performed or have occurred. A denial of performance or

occurrence shall be made specifically and with particularity.")

and HRCP Rule 9(g) ("When items of special damage are claimed,

they shall be specifically stated."). We also note that HRCP

Rule 8(f) requires that we construe Brooks's Amended Complaint

"as to do substantial justice."

We conclude that the Amended Complaint provided fair

notice to Kona Coast that Brooks was asserting claims for

violation of HRS § 378-2 based on his race and ancestry. The

Amended Complaint alleged that Brooks belonged to a class of

persons protected by the statute; that he was qualified for his

position and performed his job satisfactorily; that he

experienced various adverse employment actions; and that

circumstances surrounding the alleged adverse employment actions

gave rise to an inference of discrimination. See U.S. Equal

Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Glob. Horizons, Inc., 904 F. Supp. 2d

1074, 1087 (D. Haw. 2012) (concerning motion to dismiss complaint

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to correct

allegedly unlawful employment practices on the basis of national

origin and race).4 Kona Coast's arguments to the contrary go to

the merits of Brooks's claims, not to the sufficiency of his

pleading.

Based on the foregoing, we vacate the "Order Granting

Defendant Kona Coast Shellfish, LLC's Motion to Dismiss First

Amended Complaint Filed November 14, 2017, Filed January 29,

2018," entered on March 23, 2018, and the "Final Judgment"

4 Federal courts' interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964 are persuasive, although not controlling, over a Hawai#i state

court's interpretation of HRS § 378-2. Arquero v. Hilton Hawaiian Vill. LLC, 104 Hawai#i 423, 429–30, 91 P.3d 505, 511–12 (2004).

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

entered on June 25, 2018, and remand to the circuit court for

further proceedings.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 17, 2021.

On the briefs:

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Ted H. S. Hong, Chief Judge

for Plaintiff-Appellant.

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

John Rhee, Associate Judge

Shannon M.I. Lau,

for Defendant-Appellee. /s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Associate Judge

7