Opinion ID: 3029810
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lum’s Claims Against Gonsalves

Text: The district court correctly determined that Lum raised no issue of material fact in his several claims against Leon Gonsalves, Sr. First, there is no individual liability under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, et seq. See Miller v. Maxwell’s Int’l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587-88 (9th Cir. 1993). Second, there is no individual liability under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 378-2(1)(A) and (2). We agree with the district court’s analysis of the Hawaii statute’s language, particularly in light of its parallels to Title VII. On Lum’s section 378-2(3) claim, where individual liability is proper, Lum failed to provide any evidence that Gonsalves aided and abetted any discriminatory action. Third, the district court properly granted summary judgment on Lum’s 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims. The evidence that Lum presented shows no more than “isolated incidents” that do not support a hostile work environment claim. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998). Moreover, Lum does not have a viable retaliation claim because he has not shown that Gonsalves took any adverse employment action as required by Surrell v. Cal. Water Service Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1108 (9th Cir. 2008). 4 Fourth, the district court properly granted summary judgment on Lum’s § 1985 claim against Gonsalves. Even assuming that Lum could show that Gonsalves was racially motivated based on his use of a derogatory nickname, we conclude that Lum offered no evidence of a conspiracy between Gonsalves and anyone else to deprive Lum of equal protection. Fifth, the district court ruled that there is no individual liability under the Hawaii Whisteblowers’ Protection Act. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-62. But even if there is individual liability, it can attach at most to an agent of the employer. See id. § 378-61. Lum failed to provide evidence that Gonsalves should be considered an agent of Lum’s employer, Kauai County, much less that Gonsalves’s retaliatory actions were taken in his capacity as an agent. AFFIRMED. 5