ROSA YANG, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellant, and JOHN PEYTON, DUSTIN ARIES, JOHN DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, DOE ENTITIES 1-10, and DOE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants.
Attorney(s) for Defendant-Appellant: Phillip A. Li and Matt A. Tsukazaki
Attorney(s) for Plaintiff-Appellee: Peter C. Hsieh
NOTE: Order granting motion to postpone oral argument from 3/14/12 to 4/11/12, filed 3/13/12.
COURT: Nakamura, CJ; Fujise and Leonard, JJ.
SPECIAL NOTE: The above argument took place at the
University of Hawai`i at Manoa
William S. Richardson School of Law
Moot Court Courtroom
2515 Dole Street
Honolulu, HI 96822
Defendant-Appellant Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (Abercrombie) appeals from the March 12, 2009 order denying its motion to dismiss Plaintiff-Appellee Rosa Yang's (Yang's) complaint, which asserted various intentional tort claims against two Abercrombie employees and, under the theory of respondeat superior, Abercrombie.
The claims, including, inter alia, false imprisonment, harassment, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, stem from the alleged misconduct of two Abercrombie loss prevention officers during an incident in which they questioned Yang about missing money. Yang filed a claim for worker's compensation benefits, as well as this lawsuit, based on her alleged stress-related injuries. The principal issue raised by the parties on appeal is whether Yang's claims against Abercrombie are barred by Hawaii Revised Statutes § 386-5, the exclusive remedy provision of Hawai`i's Workers' Compensation Law.