Choi v. Tachibana Enterprises, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
30-MAY-2025
07:49 AM
Dkt. 95 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

HYE JA CHOI, Appellant-Appellant,
v.
TACHIBANA ENTERPRISES, LLC, and DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Appellees-Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.)

In this secondary appeal, self-represented Appellant-
Appellant Hye Ja Choi (Choi) challenges her disqualification
from unemployment benefits for work-related misconduct under
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 383-20(2).1 We affirm.

1 HRS § 383-30(2) (2015), entitled "Disqualification for benefits,"
provides that "[a]n individual shall be disqualified for benefits" if "the
individual has been discharged for misconduct connected with work[.]"
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Choi appeals from the Circuit Court of the First
Circuit's (Circuit Court)2 May 11, 2022 "Order Affirming
Appellee[-Appellee] Department of Labor and Industrial
Relations' [(DLIR)] Decision, Dated September 4, 2020" (Order
Affirming DLIR Decision) and "Final Judgment." The May 11, 2022
Order Affirming DLIR Decision affirmed the September 4, 2020
"Decision in the Matter of: 2004430" by the DLIR Employment
Security Appeals Referees' Office (ESARO Decision) disqualifying
Choi from unemployment benefits.
While Choi's Opening Brief does not comply with Hawaiʻi
Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) in multiple respects,
containing no points of error, record references, or argument
citing to "parts of the record relied on[,]" see HRAP Rule
28(b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(7), we endeavor to afford "litigants
the opportunity to have their cases heard on the merits, where
possible." Marvin v. Pflueger, 127 Hawai‘i 490, 496, 280 P.3d
88, 94 (2012) (cleaned up). We liberally interpret pleadings
prepared by self-represented parties to promote access to
justice and afford them appellate review, despite their non-
compliance with court rules. See Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai‘i 368,
380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020). We thus address Choi's
arguments to the extent they are discernible.
On appeal, Choi appears to argue (1) that the Circuit
Court erred by affirming the ESARO Decision that found Choi was
discharged for work-related misconduct; and (2) that the DLIR
"fail[ed] to provide language services" to Choi, and that Choi

2 The Honorable James H. Ashford presided.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

did not have "an opportunity to pr[esent] oral statements,
evidence and witnesses[.]"3
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve Choi's
contentions as follows.
On March 30, 2020, Choi was terminated from her job as
a "part-time tour guide" for Appellee-Appellee Tachibana
Enterprises, LLC (Employer).
On June 3, 2020, the Unemployment Insurance Division
(UID) issued a "Notice of Unemployment Insurance Decision" (UID
Decision), determining that Choi was not disqualified from
receiving unemployment benefits because Choi was "not discharged
for misconduct connected with work" under HRS § 383-30(2).
On June 9, 2020, Employer appealed the June 3, 2020
UID Decision, arguing that Choi was "involuntarily terminated
for unprofessional conduct and insubordination."
On July 8, 2020, a telephonic hearing was held before
the ESARO Appeals Officer. Choi did not call in for the
hearing. The Appeals Officer entered Employer's exhibits into
evidence, and noted that Choi sent in 39 pages of "additional
documents" after the hearing was scheduled; however, the
documents were not entered because Choi did not send a copy to
Employer and was not present at the hearing. The Appeals
Officer explained that Choi could present the documents if she
requested to reopen the appeal and was granted another hearing.

3 We do not address Choi's additional contention that she was
"disqualified" [sic] from "attend[ing] the first hearing" on July 8, 2020
before the ESARO appeals officer (Appeals Officer), where the Appeals Officer
granted Choi's request to reopen the hearing, and a subsequent hearing was
held on August 24, 2020. Assuming arguendo any error occurred, it was
harmless.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Employer testified that Choi refused to sign an acknowledgment
for a "revised [employee] handbook" and was given a "written
warning" for "[i]nsubordination[.]" Employer presented
witnesses and exhibits regarding two February 2020 customer
service complaints against Choi.
On July 9, 2020, the Appeals Officer reversed the June
3, 2020 UID Decision that Choi was eligible for unemployment
benefits, and determined that Choi was "discharged for
misconduct connected with work[,]" and therefore "disqualified
for benefits." (Initial ESARO Decision)
On July 24, 2020, Choi requested a reopening of the
July 9, 2020 Initial ESARO Decision because "she mistakenly
thought the Appeals Officer would be calling her and that she
did not have to call in advance." Choi's request was granted,
and a hearing was scheduled for August 24, 2020.
At the August 24, 2020 telephonic hearing, Choi was
provided a Japanese interpreter as requested. The Appeals
Officer entered Choi's "forty-page document" and an additional
"nineteen pages of additional evidence" submitted by Choi; and
went over the "previous documents that were entered" at the
prior hearing. Choi testified and cross-examined Employer's
witness; and Choi was informed that she could "call witnesses if
she want[ed]." While testifying, Choi was repeatedly requested
to state "one sentence at a time" to "let the interpreter
interpret first," but Choi had difficulty doing so. Because of
this difficulty, Choi agreed to let the Appeals Officer admit
into the record her prior statement regarding her discharge that
she had previously submitted.
The Appeals Officer's September 4, 2020 ESARO Decision
reaffirmed the July 9, 2020 Initial ESARO Decision, noted that
Employer and Choi disputed the facts, and found Employer's

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

"overall testimony and evidence to be more consistent and
credible." The ESARO Decision found that Choi was terminated as
a result of the following incidents: a March 16, 2020 "written
warning for insubordination" for "repeated non-compliance" for
refusing to sign an acknowledgment for the revised employee
handbook; a February 17, 2020 "[c]ustomer [s]ervice [c]omplaint"
for "violation of . . . airport security regulations" by
attempting to have a "passenger with a baby go through the 'Gold
Lane' security checkpoint instead of the regular ticketed
security checkpoint"; and a February 20, 2020 "[c]ustomer
[s]ervice [c]omplaint" for making "a loud false statement to
airline staff." The ESARO Decision concluded that Choi's
termination was a result of "gross neglect of duty and a
deliberate disregard of the standards of behavior an employer
has a right to expect of an employee,"4 and thus, Choi "was
discharged for misconduct connected with work."
Choi appealed to the Circuit Court, and following an
April 1, 2022 hearing,5 the Circuit Court filed its May 11, 2022
Order Affirming DLIR Decision. Choi timely appealed to this
court.
On secondary appeal, "[t]he standard of review is one
in which this court must determine whether the circuit court was

4 The Appeals Officer cited to Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules (HAR) §
12-5-51, which explains in subsection (c), that work-related misconduct
"consists of actions which show a wilful or wanton disregard of the
employer's interests[.]" Subsection (e)(2), (e)(4), and (e)(5) provide that
such misconduct may include an "[a]ltercation at work[,]" "gross neglect of
duty[,]" or the "[e]mployee's wilful disobedience of employer's directives or
employee's insubordination[.]"
5 There is no transcript of the April 1, 2022 hearing. See
Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawaiʻi 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995)
("The burden is upon appellant in an appeal to show error by reference to
matters in the record, and he or she has the responsibility of providing an
adequate transcript." (cleaned up)).

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth
in HRS § 91-14(g) . . . to the agency's decision." Flores v.
Bd. of Land & Nat. Res., 143 Hawaiʻi 114, 120, 424 P.3d 469, 475
(2018) (citation omitted).
(1) Choi appears to challenge the Circuit Court and
ESARO decisions by arguing that she was discharged for
circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and not for
work-related misconduct. These are factual determinations that
turn on the Appeals Officer's resolution of any conflicts in
witnesses' testimonies or other evidence.
"[C]ourts decline to consider the weight of the
evidence to ascertain whether it weighs in favor of the
administrative findings, or to review the agency's findings of
fact by passing upon the credibility of witnesses or conflicts
in testimony[.]" Application of Hawaiian Elec. Co., Inc., 81
Hawaiʻi 459, 465, 918 P.2d 561, 567 (1996) (citation omitted).
Here, the Appeals Officer found, based on Employer's
"more consistent and credible" "testimony and evidence," that
Choi "was discharged for misconduct connected with work" because
of the March 16, 2020 insubordination warning, and two customer
service complaints in February 2020. Choi does not present
argument regarding why these findings are clearly erroneous and
not supported by the record.
(2) Choi appears to argue that her "legal rights were
infringed by [DLIR]'s failure to provide language services[,]"
and that DLIR "refus[ed] [sic]" Choi "to submit evidence and
. . . witnesses[.]"
Here, the record of the August 24, 2020 hearing
reflects that: Choi was provided a Japanese interpreter as
requested; Choi presented testimony and cross-examined
Employer's witness; and Choi submitted a "forty-page document"
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

and "nineteen pages of additional evidence" into evidence.
Choi's argument is not supported by this record.
We conclude the Circuit Court did not err in affirming
the ESARO Decision. See Flores, 143 Hawaiʻi at 120-21, 424 P.3d
at 475-76.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Circuit
Court's May 11, 2022 Order Affirming DLIR Decision and Final
Judgment.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 30, 2025.
On the briefs:
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Hye Ja Choi,
Presiding Judge
Self-represented Appellant-
Appellant.
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Associate Judge
Trisha C. Gibo,
For Appellee-Appellee
/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
TACHIBANA ENTERPRISES, LLC.
Associate Judge

7