Loyola v. County of Hawai'i

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
27-JUN-2025
07:47 AM
Dkt. 54 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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

STEVE F. LOYOLA and TY AARON MEDEIROS, Appellants-Appellants,
v.
COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I, Appellee-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 3CC161000414)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Nakasone, JJ.)

This agency appeal addresses the contention of two
Hawai‘i Fire Department (HFD) battalion chiefs that their
placement on paid administrative leave, pending an investigation
into their conduct and their allegations, constituted discipline
or an adverse employment action. We affirm.
Appellants-Appellants Steve F. Loyola and Ty Aaron
Medeiros (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the December 7,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

2021 "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order" (Circuit
Court Order) and October 6, 2022 "Final Judgment" (Judgment),
both filed and entered by the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit
(Circuit Court). 1 The Circuit Court Order affirmed the Merit
Appeals Board of the County of Hawai‘i's (MAB) October 28, 2016
"Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order
Denying Appeals of Appellants" (MAB Order), which found, inter
alia, that there was no discipline imposed against Appellants.
On appeal, Appellants' points of error challenge 15
Findings of Fact (FOFs) and 20 Conclusions of Law (COLs) in the
Circuit Court Order as "erroneous." Appellants connect their
arguments in their Opening Brief to some, but not all, of the
challenged FOFs and COLs; and those that are included in the
argument are summarily challenged. 2 We address Appellants'
arguments that their "indefinite" leave with pay, and the
"withholding" of their "overtime" constituted "discipline" or an
"adverse employment action."
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
Appellants' contentions as follows.
At the end of November 2014, HFD Fire Chief Darren J.
Rosario (Fire Chief) placed Appellants on paid administrative
leave for alleged insubordinate conduct in violation of several

1 The Honorable Robert D.S. Kim presided.

2 "Where an appellant raises a point of error but fails to present
any accompanying argument, the point is deemed waived." Ass'n of Apartment
Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort Co., Ltd., 100 Hawai‘i 97, 110, 58 P.3d
608, 621 (2002) (citation omitted). The challenges to specific FOFs and COLs
for which we are unable to discern specific argument for, are waived. See
Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(7) ("Points not argued
may be deemed waived.").

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

HFD Rules and Regulations, "until such time that the
investigation [wa]s completed." The underlying alleged
insubordinate conduct involved Appellant Loyola's September 23,
2014 "Letter of No Confidence" in the Fire Chief, addressed to
the Fire Commission requesting Fire Chief's removal for
"unsatisfactory management," and raising numerous other
allegations. For Appellant Medeiros, the alleged underlying
insubordinate conduct involved Appellant Medeiros's September
15, 2014 memorandum to the Fire Chief, and copying the Mayor and
the Fire Commission, requesting the Fire Chief's resignation to
protect HFD from "further damage" and to protect the safety of
HFD personnel.
In December 2014, Appellants each filed an Internal
Complaint to HFD in response to their being placed on paid
administrative leave. Appellants made additional allegations
against Appellee-Appellee County of Hawai‘i (County) and the Fire
Chief, claiming "prolonged harassment, unfair treatment and
retaliation."
In March 2015, the deputy managing director reviewed
both Internal Complaints and conducted an independent
administrative review. The deputy managing director found that
the Fire Chief "acted within his authority by initiating an
investigation, removing [Appellants] from duty, placing [them]
on paid leave and 'taking' [their] badge[s]."
On March 18, 2015, Appellant Loyola appealed the
deputy managing director's decision to the MAB, and on March 30,
2015, Appellant Medeiros also appealed the decision to the MAB.
The MAB consolidated the two appeals into a single proceeding.
While Appellants were on paid administrative leave,
the Fire Chief appointed retired Police Chief Victor Vierra
(Investigator Vierra) as the independent investigator to address

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

Appellants' allegations and to determine whether Appellants
violated HFD Rules and Regulations. Investigator Vierra
addressed "each accusation" from the "list" of 27 allegations
against the Fire Chief that Appellants had raised, in which
Appellant Loyola raised 20 allegations and Appellant Medeiros
raised seven. Investigator Vierra interviewed 23 people,
generating a June 9, 2015 106-page final report. The report
concluded that, with the exception of two of Appellant Loyola's
allegations and one of Appellant Medeiros's, the remainder of
Appellants' allegations were "speculative," "unsubstantiated"
and "uncorroborated." Regarding the alleged HFD Rules and
Regulations violations by Appellants, Investigator Vierra wrote
that "it can be reasonably concluded that both [Appellants]
violated the six rules and regulations they were charged
with[,]" but "[t]he degree that each violated these rules" was
"arguable."
In June 2015, the Fire Chief ended Appellants' paid
administrative leave upon the conclusion of Investigator
Vierra's investigation.
The MAB conducted a five-day contested case hearing on
Appellants' appeal from November 19, 2015 to March 10, 2016.
The October 28, 2016 MAB Order found that Appellants suffered no
demotion in rank, no loss of benefits, or any derogatory
information in their personnel file, during their paid
administrative leave. Appellants had no corrective action
imposed on them after the investigation concluded. The MAB
Order concluded, inter alia, that there was "no discipline"
imposed against the Appellants (COL 24); "the fact that the
Appellants were not assigned overtime while they were out on
administrative leave with pay was not discipline" (COL 26); and
that "[b]ased on the breadth of the accusations against [the

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

Fire Chief] and the accusations concerning the conduct of the
Appellants, the amount of time it took to complete the
investigation was reasonable" (COL 23).
On December 1, 2016, Appellants appealed the MAB Order
to the Circuit Court.
On December 7, 2021, the Circuit Court Order affirmed
the MAB Order, and entered the October 6, 2022 Judgment, from
which Appellants timely appealed.
On secondary review of an administrative decision, we
apply the same standard of review as the Circuit Court to
determine whether the Circuit Court was right or wrong in its
decision under HRS § 91-14(g). Paul's Elec. Serv., Inc. v.
Befitel, 104 Hawai‘i 412, 416, 91 P.3d 494, 498 (2004). This
court may affirm, remand, reverse, or modify the MAB Order if
Appellants' substantial rights may have been prejudiced by the
MAB Order's violation of a statute or error of law. See HRS §
91-14(g)(1), (g)(4).
Appellants argue they were subjected to "disciplinary
or adverse employment action" through "three (3) distinct,
separate acts of unlawful discipline": (1) "[p]eer
[h]umiliation" for "being stripped of their rank . . . in front
of peers" that was "recorded"; (2) "[d]enial of [r]egularly
[s]cheduled [o]vertime"; and (3) "indefinite leave with pay."
The County responds that "such an action (paid administrative
leave pending investigation) does not mean Appellants were
subjected to 'discipline' because their compensation, benefits,
and terms of employment were not adversely impacted or
affected."
(1) Regarding the claim that "[p]eer [h]umiliation"
constituted discipline, Appellants do not point to any authority
to support their argument that the circumstances under which

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

Appellants' badges and insignias were removed, constituted an
"adverse employment action." Here, Appellants argue that:
Appellant Loyola's "peer" "saw that [sic] the deputy chief strip
Appellant's uniform of his rank and [HFD] insignia[,]" by going
into Appellant Loyola's HFD "dorm room without permission" and
into Appellant Loyola's locker; and Appellant Medeiros "was
ordered to remove the insignia of his rank" from his uniform,
while in the Fire Chief's office "and in the presence of [HFD]
personnel," and this was "recorded on video." Appellants only
cite to a general principle in Lewis v. City of Chicago, 496
F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2007), that an "adverse employment
action includes 'humiliating, degrading, unsafe, unhealthy, or
otherwise significant negative alteration in [her] work place
environment.'" Lewis did not apply or construe this
"humiliating" work place environment language, and it is not
persuasive. Appellants provide no authority that what they
characterized as "peer humiliation" under the circumstances of
this case constituted an adverse employment action.
Further, the MAB made a mixed legal and factual
determination that in light of Appellants' "serious and wide[-]
ranging accusations against the Fire Chief," HFD's action of
"investigat[ing] the Appellants and the accusations[,]" was
"according to the Rules and Regulations of [HFD]." COL 21.
Where mixed questions of fact and law are presented, we defer to
the agency's expertise and experience in the particular field
and will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency.
Dole Haw. Div.-Castle & Cooke, Inc. v. Ramil, 71 Haw. 419, 424,
794 P.2d 1115, 1118 (1990). Appellants' "peer humiliation"
challenge lacks merit.
(2) Regarding the claim that "denial of overtime"
constituted discipline, Appellants rely on a singled unreported

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

out-of-state case, Williams v. City of Harrisburg, 2005 WL
2335131 (M.D. Pa. 2005), to support their contention that "where
overtime is an accepted practice, the loss of overtime
opportunities can be considered disciplinary because it affects
the employee's compensation and privileges of employment."
Williams was a firefighter who was suspended and removed from a
specialized unit by his fire chief. Id. at *5. The Williams
court found that:
Since [p]laintiff remain[ed] employed as a Harrisburg
firefighter, removal from the specialized teams is not an
adverse employment action unless the removal resulted in
lower pay, less benefits, less opportunity for overtime,
considerably worse working conditions, a "dead-end"
position within the organization, or some other tangible
adverse change in [p]laintiff's employment status, which
would rise to the level of an adverse employment action for
purposes of Title VII.

Id.
Appellants do not explain how the situation in
Williams supports their claim that the lack of scheduled
overtime in this case constituted discipline, where Appellants
were on paid administrative leave without a change in pay or
benefits, and suffered no demotion. See Haw. Ventures, LLC v.
Otaka, Inc., 114 Hawai‘i 438, 469 n.16, 164 P.3d 696, 727 n.16
(2007) (noting "appellate courts are not obligated" to
"crystalize the parties' arguments" (citation omitted)).
While Appellants claim the "County provides for and
anticipates the routine practice of scheduling overtime for
[HFD] employees[,]" they do not point to any authority that the
County must do so for employees who are on paid administrative
leave pending an investigation. The County argues that
"Appellants [w]ere [n]ot [e]ligible for 'Scheduled Overtime'" as
"defined by [the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement]

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

§ 20(c) as 'four (4) scheduled work hours in excess of sixty-
eight (68) hours per work period."
Here, the MAB determined that "Appellants have not
shown they were required or entitled to receive overtime pay
during the time they were on administrative leave with pay."
COL 19. See Dole Haw. Div.-Castle & Cooke, Inc., 71 Haw. at
424, 794 P.2d at 1118. We conclude the Circuit Court correctly
affirmed the MAB's conclusion resolving the claim of entitlement
to overtime while on paid administrative leave. See Paul's
Elec. Serv., Inc., 104 Hawai‘i at 416, 91 P.3d at 498.
Appellants' "denial of overtime" challenge lacks merit.
(3) Regarding the claim that "indefinite leave with
pay" constituted discipline, Appellants' use of the term
"indefinite" is not accurate, where the paid leave began and
ended on certain dates. Appellants acknowledge that legal
authorities have held that placing an employee on administrative
leave with pay does not constitute an "adverse employment
action." Appellants nevertheless argue, however, that this
general principle should be limited to a "short period of time"
not to "exceed three (3) months."
Here, the MAB Order pertinently concluded that "the
amount of time it took to complete the investigation" was
"reasonable" "[b]ased on the breadth of the accusations against
the Fire Chief and the accusations concerning the conduct of the
Appellants[.]" The record supports that the approximately six-
months-long duration of Appellants' paid administrative leave,
from November 21, 2014 to June 2015, while the investigation was
being completed, was reasonable due to the volume of interviews
conducted (23 witnesses), the large number of allegations (27
total) raised by Appellants, and the Fire Chief's accusations

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

against the Appellants. Appellants' "indefinite leave with pay"
challenge lacks merit.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Circuit Court
of the Third Circuit's December 7, 2021 Circuit Court Order and
the October 6, 2022 Final Judgment.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, June 27, 2025.
On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Ted H.S. Hong,
Acting Chief Judge
for Appellants-Appellants.
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Mark D. Disher,
Associate Judge
Deputy Corporation Counsel,
for Appellee-Appellee.
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Associate Judge

9