Eviction moratorium on Maui Island ends on Feb. 4, 2025. For updates, click here.
No. SCAP-23-0000416, Thursday, October 31, 2024, 9 a.m.
No. SCAP-23-0000416, Thursday, October 31, 2024, 9 a.m.
ANN GIMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Defendant-Appellee.
[ Listen to the audio recording in MP3 format ]
[ Watch the video recording on YouTube ]
The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ʻŌlelo Community Television olelo.org/tv-schedule/.
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant ANN GIMA:
Joseph T. Rosenbaum, Elizabeth Jubin Fujiwara and Marcos R. Bendana of Fujiwara & Rosenbaum, LLLC
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU:
Nicolette Winter, William K. Awong and Maria C. Cook, Deputies Corporation Counsel.
NOTE: Order granting Application for Transfer filed 03/07/24.
COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.
Brief Description:
This is an employment discrimination case involving a disability discrimination claim under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 378-2. Ann Gima (“Gima”) filed an employment discrimination claim against her employer, the City and County of Honolulu (“City”). Gima was placed on workers’ compensation leave due to a stress injury. As a reasonable accommodation, Gima requested to change supervisors as her sole permanent work restriction. The City stated it was unable to accommodate Gima’s request.
Gima filed complaints with the Hawai‘i Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. These complaints were dismissed, and Gima timely filed a lawsuit in the circuit court. The circuit court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment and found that as a matter of law, Gima did not have a prima facie case of disability discrimination or retaliation. This appeal was transferred from the ICA to this court.
Gima asserts that the circuit court erred in granting the City’s motion for summary judgment on her disability discrimination and retaliation claims and raises several issues, including whether Gima has a “disability” within the meaning of HRS § 378-2, and whether a request to work for another supervisor is considered a reasonable accommodation.