 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kimberly v. State7/29/2005
By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, and Duffy, JJ.; and Intermediate Court of Appeals Associate Judge Nakamura, in place of Acoba, J., recused
The instant case involves the sexual harassment of plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant Kimberly [hereinafter, Plaintiff] by an Adult Corrections Officer (ACO) while she was incarcerated at the Oahu Community Correctional Center (OCCC). After her release from incarceration, Plaintiff filed suit in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit against, inter alia, the ACO who harassed her, defendant-appellant/cross-appellee the State of Hawaii [hereinafter, the State] and individuals involved in the management of OCCC, including defendant-appellant/cross-appellee Harry Tanouye. After a bench trial before the Honorable Sabrina S. McKenna, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff. Plaintiff, the State, and Tanouye timely appealed.
On appeal, Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in: (1) dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against defendant Guy Hall; (2) denying her request for additional damages; (3) limiting her award of prejudgment interest and sanctions; and (4) sanctioning her for discovery abuses. The State claims that the trial court erred in: (1) imposing sanctions against it as a party to the litigation; (2) failing to dismiss Plaintiff's claims based on the statute of limitations; (3) failing to dismiss Plaintiff's claims based on sovereign immunity; (4) holding it liable for the torts of its employees who were protected by qualified immunity; (5) holding it liable for negligent supervision when its agents were immune from liability; (6) holding it jointly and severally liable with its employees; and (7) holding it liable for post-judgment interest. Tanouye contends that the trial court erred in: (1) denying his motions to dismiss Plaintiff's 40 U.S.C. § 1983 claims; (2) awarding Plaintiff punitive damages; and (3) denying his motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. Based on the following, we remand the instant case for recalculation of the damages award.
I. BACKGROUND
From February through June 1993, Plaintiff was incarcerated in Module 18, a male housing unit in the OCCC. During her incarceration, Plaintiff worked in the Food Service Unit, where she helped prepare meals for other inmates and workers.
While Plaintiff was incarcerated, Defendant Dana Taylor worked in Module 18 as an ACO. Tanouye was a Unit Team Manager (UTM) for three modules in OCCC, including Module 18. During the same period of time, Hall was the acting warden at OCCC, with supervisory authority over prisoners and staff, including Taylor and Tanouye.
A. Allegations of Taylor's Prior Misconduct
Prior to Plaintiff's confinement at OCCC, Taylor had been terminated from his position as an ACO after an administrative committee of the Department of Public Safety (DPS) had found that, while in uniform and away from his post without leave, Taylor had purchased and consumed cocaine and kidnapped and sexually assaulted a prisoner who was on supervised release. On July 9, 1992, a grievance filed by Taylor was upheld on procedural grounds, and Taylor was reinstated as an ACO. In a memorandum dated October 29, 1992 [hereinafter, the Tatiana Memo], acting OCCC Deputy Administrator Kenneth Saito was advised by acting OCCC chief of security James Dukes that Taylor had allegedly assaulted and raped a woman on two separate occasions while off-duty. The Tatiana Memo recommended referring the allegations about Taylor to the DPS's Internal Affairs Office (Internal Affairs) for investigation. However, no referral was made.
B. Taylor's Misconduct Against Plaintiff
1. February
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Hawaii Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|