Hawaii Employment Law Decisions from March 1 to March 7 – Jeffrey S. Harris

The District Court erroneously granted summary judgment against an employee's retaliation claim under the Energy Reorganization Act, because the employee offered evidence showing that his subcontractor employer transferred him off a project because the general contractor was unhappy about him raising safety concerns. He had a constitutional right to jury trial for his claims seeking compensatory damages. Tamosaitis v. URS, Inc., 781 F.3d 468 (9th Cir. March 4, 2015).

The District Court correctly dismissed an age discrimination claim by a pilot who turned 60, five days before the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act increased the age at which pilots were required to cease flying from 60 to 65.  FTEPA was not retroactive and the pilot did not qualify for one of its exceptions. Weiland v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 778 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. March 2, 2015).

The District Court did not erroneously grant summary judgment against an employee's discrimination claims based on her termination and encounters that took place several months later, because those claims were not reasonably related to the events the employee described in her administrative complaint.   The District Court did not erroneously grant summary judgment against the employee's discrimination claims described in her administrative complaint,  because the employee did not offer sufficient evidence that the employer took adverse actions against her, perceived that she had a disability, or terminated her for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons.  The employee failed to establish a prima facie case of intentional infliction of emotional distress because the conduct she complained of was not outrageous. You v. Long's Drug Stores Calif., LLC, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3209 (9th Cir. March 2, 2015).

Note: We analyze cases to learn rules the courts will follow or disappoint us if they don't. Rules that the courts follow allow us to behave and provide explanations that they accept. But competent advocates may limit the rules to the facts of the case where they are discussed, or expand rules by showing that differences in other cases are irrelevant.

Note: We analyze cases to learn rules the courts will follow or disappoint us if they don't. Rules that the courts follow allow us to behave and provide explanations that they accept. But competent advocates may limit the rules to the facts of the case where they are discussed, or expand rules by showing that differences in other cases are irrelevant.