Santfin.txt
HAWAII CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION
STATE OF HAWAII
In the Matter of ) Docket No. 91-001 E-SH
) Fep No. WH 3962
DOLORES R. SANTOS, )
) FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
Complainant, )
)
)
MASAMI "SPARKY" NIIMI and )
HAWAIIAN FLOWER EXPORTS, INC. )
)
Respondents. )
)
)
FINAL DECISION
On January 6, 1993, 1:00 p.m., the Commission heard oral
argument in the above-entitled case. Present were Commissioners
Amefil Agbayani, Daphne Barbee-Wooten, Josephine Epstein, Jackie
Mahi-Erickson, and Richard Port. Complainant Dolores R. Santos
("Complainant") was present. The case in support of the
complaint[1] ("Santos") was presented by Enforcement Attorneys Karl
Sakamoto, Esq., and Anne Randolph, Esq. Respondent Masami "Sparky"
Niimi ("Respondent Niimi") was represented by Glenn Hara, Esq.
Respondent Hawaiian Flower Exports, Inc. ("HFE") was not
represented and did not file exceptions or participate in the oral
argument.
Santos and Respondent Niimi filed written exceptions to
and statements in support of the Proposed Decision issued by the
Hearings Examiner. The Commissioners considered the exceptions and
statements, heard the oral argument, and reviewed the portions of
the record cited by the parties. At the hearing, Respondent Niimi
sought to have an exhibit entered into the record. Santos did not
oppose the request. Although the Commission's review of the
proposed decision should be limited to the record developed at the
administrative hearing, the Commission admits the document as
Respondent's Exhibit O, pursuant to H.R.S. sec. 91-9(d).[2]
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Commission hereby adopts and incorporates by
reference Findings of Fact 1 through 38 and Appendix A of the
Proposed Decision. The Commission hereby adopts and incorporates
by reference Conclusions of Law A (Jurisdiction); B (Hostile Work
Environment Sexual Harassment); C (Constructive Discharge); D
(Liability); and E (Remedies) 1 (Back Pay), 3 (Punitive Damages),
and 4 (Other Relief) of the Proposed Decision. The Commission
hereby modifies Conclusion of Law E 2 (Compensatory Damages) of the
Proposed Decision to determine that $80,000.00 is appropriate
compensation for Complainant's damages. The remainder of
Conclusion of Law E 2 is adopted and incorporated by reference.
The Commission having reviewed the record and considered
the arguments finds that Complainant's testimony about the
occurrence of the incidents to be more credible than Respondent
Niimi's. The Commission finds that the preponderance of the
evidence in the record establishes that the harassing conduct did
take place. The conduct constitutes sexual harassment or
discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of H.R.S. sec. 378-2
and H.A.R. sec. 12-46-101 et seq.
The Commission is authorized to award compensatory
damages to victims of unlawful discrimination. H.R.S. sec. 368-14.
The record is clear that the discriminatory conduct caused
Complainant to suffer considerable embarrassment, humiliation, and
emotional distress. There are ample medical records to support the
causation and extent of Complainant's injuries. Without minimizing
the extent of Complainant's injuries, however, the Commission deems
that an award of $80,000.00 in compensatory damages is appropriate
in this case.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Respondent HFE shall pay Complainant back pay in the
amount of $8739.92 which consists of $10,580.00 (Average weekly
wage $230.00 x 46 weeks) less $1,840.34 (Weekly Benefits $154.34 x
12 weeks for July 4, 1991 to September 30, 1991) received as
Workers' Compensation Disability payments. Complainant's future
medical expenses will be covered by Workers' Compensation.
2. Respondents HFE and Masami Sparky Niimi are jointly
and severally liable and shall pay Complainant $80,000.00 as
damages in compensation for her injuries resulting from
discrimination based upon sex.
3. Respondent Masami Sparky Niimi shall pay Complainant
$10,000.00 as punitive damages.
4. Santos' request for deposition costs and interest is
denied.
Dated: Honolulu, Hawaii,
Amefil Agbayani, Chairperson
Daphne Barbee-Wooten, Commissioner
Josephine Epstein, Commissioner
Jackie Mahi-Erickson, Commissioner
Richard Port, Commissioner
NOTICE: Pursuant to H.R.S. sec. 91-14 an aggrieved party may
institute proceedings for judicial review in the circuit court
within thirty days after service of the certified copy of the final
decision and order of the agency.
footnotes:
1. H.R.S. sec. 368-14(a) (1991) provides in part that "[t]he
case in support of the complaint shall be presented at the hearing
by counsel provided by the commission." Thus, at the
administrative hearing stage, the Complainant is technically not a
party to the action unless a motion to intervene is granted.
H.A.R. sec. 12-46-25.
2. H.R.S. sec. 91-9(d) allows the parties to stipulate to
modify or waive any procedure in a contested case.
