The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii granted a motion for summary judgment filed by Hertz Rent-a-Car as to a customer's claims for negligent supervision, negligent retention, and negligent training.  The claims relate to the customer's allegation that he was subjected to Facebook posts by an employee, Shawn Akina, which were discriminatory on the basis of race, sexual orientation and financial state and condition.  The day after the Facebook posts were made, the customer complained to company management about them.  Employees who were involved with the postings were subsequently either terminated by Hertz or resigned from the company.  The customer nonetheless filed suit, alleging that he suffered posttraumatic stress disorder as a result of the postings, that his tax preparation business declined and that he was forced to sell the business as a result.

 

After having some of the plaintiff's claims dismissed via an earlier motion, Hertz filed a motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claims of negligent supervision, negligent retention, and negligent training.  In concluding that summary judgment was proper as to these claims, United States District Judge Susan Oki Mollway reasoned that the customer failed to establish the "typical negligence factors:  1) duty, 2) breach of duty, 3) causation, and 4) damages.  In this case, the court concluded that the customer's failure to establish that Hertz had a duty to him was fatal to each remaining claim.

 

With respect to the negligent supervision and negligent retention claims, the customer was required to show that Hertz knew or should have known of the danger posed by the employee that caused the injury.  While the customer argued that the company's employee handbook had policies addressing the need to safeguard customer information and to refrain from misconduct that is discriminatory or violates the workplace violence prohibitions, Judge Mollway concluded that "Hertz's acknowledgment of possible dangers in its handbook does not suffice by itself to establish a duty of care running from Hertz" to the customer.  As such, summary judgment was deemed proper regarding these claims.

 

With respect to the negligent training claim, the court noted that while Hawaii appellate courts have not yet defined the contours of a negligent training claim, other jurisdictions note that an employer has a duty to train an employee when a duty poses a foreseeable risk of harm if performed without adequate training.  While the customer argued that Hertz had a duty to properly train employees to conduct themselves in a lawful manner in their interactions with customers and the public, the court concluded that the duty failed to identify any specific job responsibility that posed a risk of danger to customers as a result of the company's failure to train.  This, among other reasons, was sufficient to justify summary judgment on the negligent training claim.

 

Judge Mollway also denied the customer's request for additional time to complete discovery in lieu of granting summary judgment, thereby granting Hertz's motion for summary judgment and ordering the case closed.  Howard v. The Hertz Corporation