Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Chang v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate
Citation: 81 F. App'x 685Docket: No. 02-15568; D.C. No. CV-00-00302-HG/BMK
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; November 19, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
Randall Chang appeals the district court’s summary judgment favoring Kamehameha Schools Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, Trustee Robert Kihune, and former COO Nathan Aipa. He claims a hostile work environment, job elimination as General Manager of the Asset Management Group, and termination due to national origin discrimination and retaliation for opposing perceived preferential treatment of Hawaiian employees. Three procedural issues are addressed: 1. Chang’s appeal was timely as his post-judgment motion qualified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), extending the appeal deadline. 2. The district court rightly dismissed Chang’s second amended complaint, which only elaborated on prior claims without introducing new allegations. 3. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying Chang’s motion to compel the production of executive session minutes, as he did not demonstrate that the Defendants failed to produce relevant non-privileged documents. On the substantive claims, the court affirmed the summary judgment on disparate treatment, finding no genuine factual dispute regarding whether the Estate’s staff reorganization and employment decision were pretexts for discrimination. Despite Chang's assertions of preferential treatment for others, evidence indicated that alternative positions were considered for him. The court also upheld the summary judgment concerning the hostile work environment claim, noting Chang did not establish a material fact that he was targeted due to his national origin. Additionally, it confirmed that Chang did not exhaust administrative remedies for his retaliatory harassment and termination claims, as his discrimination charge did not mention retaliation or his opposition to the Estate's alleged preferences. The Pre-Complaint Questionnaire did not provide sufficient basis to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding the retaliation claim. The Pre-Complaint Questionnaire addresses a retaliation claim that differs from the one Chang raises on appeal. The district court previously dismissed Chang’s claim that the Estate retaliated against him for his testimony supporting former Trustees, a decision Chang does not contest. The court affirmed its grant of summary judgment on Chang’s hostile work environment, retaliation, and disparate treatment claims against the Estate, stating that there was no error in dismissing claims against individuals Robert Kihune and Nathan Aipa under Haw. Rev. Stat. 378-2. The court did not address whether Hawaii discrimination laws allow for individual liability. Additionally, Chang’s breach of contract claim against the Estate, based on promissory estoppel, was rejected due to the parol evidence rule, which prevents consideration of earlier promises conflicting with his signed at-will employment agreements. The district court's decision is affirmed and deemed non-citable per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.