Court Opinion

ID: 9918376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 19:02:33.626762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:05.028465
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                 Electronically Filed
                                                 Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                 CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                 12-JAN-2024
                                                 07:50 AM
                                                 Dkt. 98 SO

                          NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                        OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 MORNING HILL FOODS, LLC, DBA MANA BU'S, Appellant-Appellant, v.
      THE HAWAII CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, Appellee-Appellee

         APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                        (CIVIL NO. 18-1-0034)

                      SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
            (By: Leonard, Presiding J., and McCullen, J;
                and Circuit Judge Hamman, in place of
            Ginoza, Chief Judge, and Hiraoka, Wadsworth,
               Nakasone, and Guidry, JJ., all recused)

           Respondent-Appellant-Appellant Morning Hill Foods, LLC,

dba Mana Bu's (Morning Hill) appeals from the Final Judgment

filed on July 16, 2018, entered against Morning Hill and in favor

of Complainant-Appellee-Appellee the Hawai#i Civil Rights

Commission (HCRC) in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit

(Circuit Court).1    Morning Hill also challenges the Circuit

Court's Order Affirming in Part and Modifying in Part the Hawai#i

     1
           The Honorable Keith K. Hiraoka presided.
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Civil Rights Commission's Final Decision and Order Dated December

12, 2017.

            Morning Hill raises a single point of error on appeal,

contending that the Circuit Court erred in concluding that

Hawai#i Administrative Rule (HAR) § 12-46-133 (1990) is not

unconstitutional on its face.2

            Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we

resolve Morning Hill's point of error as follows:

            In the proceedings before the HCRC, in a March 17, 2017

Decision and Order Granting Executive Director's First Motion for

Summary Judgment (Order Granting MSJ), the HCRC Hearings Examiner

concluded, inter alia,

                  1) [Morning Hill's] two advertisements, one in the
            shop's window and the other on [C]raigslist, are
            discriminatory and violate Hawaii Revised Statutes
            [(HRS)] § 378-2(a)(1)(c) and HAR § 12-46-131 and 12-46-133.

            This determination was later reiterated in the July 6,

2017 Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and

     2
            HAR § 12-46-133 provides, in relevant part:

                  § 12-46-133 Pre-employment practices. (a) Where an
            employer or other covered entity, as a part of its
            recruitment process, advertises job openings through the
            media, employment agencies, posting of notices, or through
            other means, it is discrimination on the basis of age for
            the employer to express or cause to be expressed a
            preference for individuals of a particular age or range of
            ages, unless there is a BFOQ for the position. Phrases such
            as "young", "college student", "girl", "boy", "recent
            college graduate", "retired person", ["]supplement your
            pension", or others of a similar nature are prohibited
            unless there is a BFOQ for the position.

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

Recommended Order, as well as the October 10, 2017 Hearing

Officer's Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and

Recommended Order and adopted and restated in the findings and

conclusions in the HCRC's December 12, 2017 Final Decision and

Order.

          On appeal to the Circuit Court, Morning Hill did not

challenge the finding and conclusion that its two advertisements

are discriminatory and violated HRS § 378-2(a)(1)(C) (2015).3

Nor was this issue raised or argued in this secondary appeal.

Therefore, any challenge to the HCRC's finding and conclusion

that Morning Hill's advertisements were discriminatory and in

violation of HRS § 378-2(a)(1)(C) is waived, regardless of any

determination as to the constitutionality of HAR § 12-46-133.

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

                § 378-2. Discriminatory practices made unlawful;
          offenses defined. (a) It shall be an unlawful
          discriminatory practice:

                (1)   Because of race, sex including gender identity
                      or expression, sexual orientation, age,
                      religion, color, ancestry, disability, marital
                      status, arrest and court record, or domestic or
                      sexual violence victim status if the domestic or
                      sexual violence victim provides notice to the
                      victim's employer of such status or the employer
                      has actual knowledge of such status:

                      . . . .

                      (C)   For any employer or employment agency to
                            print, circulate, or cause to be printed
                            or circulated any statement,
                            advertisement, or publication or to use
                            any form of application for employment or
                            to make any inquiry in connection with
                            prospective employment, that expresses,
                            directly or indirectly, any limitation,
                            specification, or discrimination[.]

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

          The fundamental principles of judicial restraint and

constitutional avoidance require that courts abstain from

contemplating constitutional issues where such inquiry is

unnecessary to dispose of the case at bar.     Haw. Gov't Emps.

Ass'n v. Lingle, 124 Hawai#i 197, 208, 239 P.3d 1, 12 (2010)

(citing the "fundamental and longstanding principle of judicial

restraint requires that courts avoid reaching constitutional

questions in advance of the necessity of deciding them")

(citation omitted); see also State v. Delima, 78 Hawai#i 343, 348

n.7, 893 P.2d 194, 199 n.7 (1995) (declining to address

constitutional argument where statutory grounds were sufficient

for disposition); State v. Domingo, 69 Haw. 68, 70, 733 P.2d 690,

692 (1987) (standing for same proposition).     Thus, as Morning

Hill failed to challenge the finding and conclusion of

discrimination under HRS § 378-2(a)(1)(c), we decline to reach

Morning Hill's constitutional challenges to HAR § 12-46-133.

          For these reasons, the Circuit Court's July 16, 2018

Final Judgment is affirmed.

          DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 12, 2024.

On the briefs:                        /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
                                      Presiding Judge
Andrew Daisuke Stewart,
(Showa Law Office, LLLC),             /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
for Appellant-Appellant.              Associate Judge

Kaliko#onalani D. Fernandes,        /s/ Kirstin M. Hamman
Deputy Solicitor General,           Circuit Judge
Department of the Attorney General,
for Appellee-Appellee.

                                  4