The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii has issued a court order dismissing an employment lawsuit that was filed by a Maui police officer against the County of Maui. The lawsuit alleged sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED"), and intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED").
The plaintiff in this case was the Lahaina District Commander for the Maui Police Department. She applied for a position as the Assistant Chief, but that job was given to a male officer who (at the time) held the rank of Captain. Prior to applying for the position of Assistant Chief, the plaintiff also previously served as a Captain and had been assigned to be the Acting Assistant Chief / Inspector of Support Services Bureau over 25 times. When she applied for the position of Assistant Chief, the plaintiff was allegedly informed that the position was already slated to be filled by somebody else ? the aforementioned male Captain. Thereafter, the plaintiff sued Maui County for sex discrimination and emotional distress.
In analyzing the plaintiff's lawsuit, the court first noted that her complaint did not contain any direct evidence of sex discrimination. In other words, the plaintiff's complaint lacked evidence of clearly sexist or similarly discriminatory statements or actions by the police department.
In addition, the court concluded that the plaintiff also failed to provide any circumstantial evidence of discriminatory conduct. Such circumstantial evidence is required in the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, as outlined by the well-established burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Under this framework, a plaintiff can established a prima facie case of discrimination by satisfying the following four elements:
- She belonged to a protected class;
- She was qualified for the position she applied for and performed her job satisfactorily;
- She suffered an adverse employment action; and
- Other "similarly situated" employees not belonging to the protected class did not experience similar adverse employment decisions.
In the court's eye, the first three elements were not at issue in this case. With regards to the fourth element, however, the court agreed with Maui County that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating that she was "similarly situated" with the male employee who was given the Assistant Chief position. Specifically, the court explained that the plaintiff's complaint was devoid of any facts that the two individuals were similarly situated, that their roles were similar, or that they displayed similar conduct. Additionally, although the plaintiff's complaint alleged that the other individual was a "less experienced and less qualified male" who also had "less seniority" than the plaintiff, she provided no indication that the two individuals were in a similar position at the time they applied for the vacant Assistant Chief position.
Finally, the court also dismissed the plaintiff's claims for NIED and IIED because they were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of Hawaii's workers' compensation law.