 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McClane v. Delta Airlines7/22/2005
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
By: Watanabe, Acting C.J., Nakamura, and Fujise, JJ.
In this employment discrimination case, Plaintiff-Appellant Delores A. McClane (McClane) appeals from the Judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Delta Airlines, Inc. (Delta) filed on October 5, 2001, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court). McClane sued her then employer, Delta, and two of members of Delta's Honolulu management, Donald Maxwell (Maxwell) and William Pursley (Pursley). McClane's complaint alleged claims of race discrimination (Count I); age discrimination (Count II); retaliation (Count III); negligent retention (Count IV); intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count V); negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count VI); punitive damages (Count VII); and injunctive relief (Count VIII). The circuit court's October 5, 2001, Judgment referenced the following stipulation and orders that collectively dismissed all of the claims raised by McClane in her complaint: 1) stipulation dismissing Maxwell and Pursley from the action with prejudice; 2) order granting Delta's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings as to Count IV (negligent retention) and Count VI (negligent infliction of emotional distress); 3) order granting Delta's motion for partial summary judgment based on (a) the failure to exhaust administrative remedies and (b) the statute of limitations, which dismissed the allegations in paragraphs 16(a), 16(b), 16(c), 17 (first paragraph only), 18, and 22 of the complaint; 4) order granting Delta's motion for summary judgment on Count I (race discrimination) and Count III (retaliation); and 5) order granting Delta's motion for summary judgment on Count II (age discrimination), Count VII (punitive damages), and Count VIII (injunctive relief).
McClane's pro se brief challenges the dismissal of each of her claims against Delta. McClane also argues that the circuit court erred in denying her requests for 1) the production of the complete personnel files of Maxwell and Pursley; 2) the admission of audio tapes in evidence; and 3) a jury trial. After a careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, we resolve the issues raised by McClane on appeal as follows:
1. The circuit court properly dismissed McClane's claims of race discrimination, age discrimination, and retaliation. Certain of the allegations on which these claims were based were barred by McClane's failure to exhaust administrative remedies or the statute of limitations. See Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 368-11 (1993 and Supp. 2004); HRS § 368-12 (1993); Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co., 76 Hawaii 454, 460, 879 P.2d 1037, 1043 (1994). With respect to the non-barred allegations, 1) McClane failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation or 2) after Delta provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanation for its actions, McClane failed to respond with evidence that Delta's stated explanations were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. Shoppe v. Gucci America, Inc., 94 Hawaii 368, 378-79, 14 P.3d 1049, 1059-60 (2000) (applying the burden-shifting analysis set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) to discrimination claims); Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 96 Hawaii 408, 425-26, 32 P.3d 52, 69-70 (2001) (applying McDonnell Douglas formula to retaliation claims). Accordingly, there was no genuine issue as to any material fact regarding McClane's discrimination and retaliation claims and Delta was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 56(c).
2. The circuit court properly dismissed McClane's claim of intentional inf
Page 1 2 Hawaii Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|