CourtListener 10842911

Testo completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
14-APR-2026
07:51 AM
Dkt. 97 MO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

ANN SAKAGUCHI, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI#I; DENISE KONAN,
individually and in her capacity as Dean of the
University of Hawai#i at Mânoa College of Social Sciences,
Defendants-Appellees,
and DOE INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CC181000321)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Ann Sakaguchi appeals from the Final Judgment for the
University of Hawai#i (UH) and Denise Konan, entered by the
Circuit Court of the First Circuit.1
We hold: (1) Sakaguchi's claim for intentional
infliction of emotional distress was barred by the exclusive
remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Law; (2) claims
based on separate, distinguishable violations of the Hawai#i
Whistleblowers' Protection Act (HWPA) that occurred over two
years before she sued were time-barred, but claims for alleged
violations that occurred within the two years before she sued,
and her claims for pay differential and earning disparity
beginning two years before she sued, were not time-barred; (3)(a)
her claim for not being named department chair was not subject to

1
The Honorable Dean E. Ochiai presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

a collective bargaining agreement and should have been allowed,
but only for pay differential beginning two years before she
sued, and (b) her earning disparity claim was subject to a
collective bargaining agreement, but should have been allowed
under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 378-66(b), and limited to
disparity beginning two years before she sued; and (4) the
Circuit Court did not err by granting summary judgment for UH on
claims (other than for pay differential and earning disparity)
based on alleged HWPA violations that occurred within two years
before she filed her complaint.
We affirm the Final Judgment in part and vacate it in
part, and remand for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

Sakaguchi sued UH and Konan on February 28, 2018.
Konan was sued as an individual and as Dean of the University of
Hawai#i Mânoa College of Social Sciences. Sakaguchi's amended
complaint asserted four claims: (1) violation of HRS § 378-62
(part of the HWPA); (2) tortious interference with prospective
economic/business advantage; (3) interference with prospective
contractual relations; and (4) intentional infliction of
emotional distress (IIED).
Claims 2 and 3 were dismissed by stipulation. In a
series of orders, the Circuit Court dismissed or entered summary
judgment against Sakaguchi on Claim 1 (HWPA) and Claim 4 (IIED).
The Final Judgment was entered on October 9, 2023. This appeal
followed. Only the HWPA and IIED claims against UH are at
issue.2
II. POINTS OF ERROR

Sakaguchi contends3 the Circuit Court erred by:
(1) dismissing her IIED claim based on the workers' compensation
exclusive remedy statute, HRS § 386-5; (2) dismissing her "Pre-

2
Sakaguchi has not appealed the summary judgment on her HWPA claim,
or the dismissal of her IIED claim, against Konan.
3
We have re-ordered and partially consolidated Sakaguchi's points
of error.

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

February 28, 2016 Retaliatory Claims" based on the statute of
limitations and treating UH's statute of limitations defense as a
jurisdictional issue; (3) entering summary judgment for failure
to exhaust her remedies under the University of Hawai#i
Professional Assembly collective bargaining agreements (CBAs);
and (4) granting summary judgment on her post-February 28, 2016
HWPA claims.

III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Motion to Dismiss

Orders granting motions to dismiss are reviewed de
novo. Kealoha v. Machado, 131 Hawai#i 62, 74, 315 P.3d 213, 225
(2013). We assume the facts alleged in the complaint are true
and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to see
if they warrant relief under any legal theory. Id. We are not
required to accept conclusions about the legal effect of the
facts alleged, id., but we bear in mind that Hawai#i is a notice-
pleading jurisdiction where legal theories need not be pleaded
with precision, Bank of Am., N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 143 Hawai#i
249, 259, 428 P.3d 761, 771 (2018), overruled on other grounds by
Wilmington Savs. Fund Soc'y v. Domingo, 155 Hawai#i 1, 556 P.3d
347 (2024).

B. Motion for Summary Judgment

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Ralston
v. Yim, 129 Hawai#i 46, 55, 292 P.3d 1276, 1285 (2013). Summary
judgment is appropriate if the evidence shows there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Id. A fact is material if proof of
that fact would establish or refute an essential element of a
party's cause of action or defense. Id. at 55–56, 292 P.3d at
1285–86. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party. Id. at 56, 292 P.3d at 1286.
"[F]indings of fact made by a trial court in relation
to a summary judgment ruling are not binding on appeal, nor do

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

they alter our de novo standard of review regarding a summary
judgment ruling." Hilo Bay Marina, LLC v. State, 156 Hawai#i
478, 487, 575 P.3d 568, 577 (2025).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Sakaguchi's IIED claim, which was not based
on sexual harassment or sexual assault, was
barred by HRS § 386-5.

Sakaguchi was employed by UH. UH moved to dismiss her
IIED claim,4 arguing it was barred by the Hawai#i Workers
Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision. The motion was
filed under Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 12(b)(6)
and presented no evidence outside the pleadings. Sakaguchi's
opposition presented no evidence outside the pleadings. We
disregard the declarations and exhibits attached to UH's reply
memorandum.
HRS § 386-5 (2015) provides:

The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee . . .
on account of a work injury suffered by the employee shall
exclude all other liability of the employer to the employee,
. . . at common law or otherwise, on account of the injury,
except for sexual harassment or sexual assault and
infliction of emotional distress or invasion of privacy
related thereto, in which case a civil action may also be
brought.

(Emphasis added.)
The supreme court has held:

Based on a plain reading, HRS § 386-5 unambiguously
provides that claims for infliction of emotional distress
. . . are not subject to the exclusivity provision when such
claims arise from claims for sexual harassment or sexual
assault, in which case a civil action may be brought.
Inasmuch as [plaintiff] has alleged a claim for emotional
distress, that does not arise out of sexual harassment or
sexual assault, such claim is, pursuant to HRS § 386-5,
barred.

4
A plaintiff claiming IIED must show that the defendant's conduct:
(1) was intentional or reckless; (2) was outrageous; and (3) caused extreme
emotional distress. Goran Pleho, LLC v. Lacy, 144 Hawai #i 224, 237, 439 P.3d
176, 189 (2019). The term "outrageous" has been construed to mean "without
just cause or excuse and beyond all bounds of decency." Id.

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

Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawai#i 92, 109,
176 P.3d 91, 108 (2008) (bold italics added).
Here, the allegations in Sakaguchi's amended complaint,
viewed in the light most favorable to her, do not allege she was
sexually harassed or sexually assaulted.
Sakaguchi argues HRS § 386-5 does not bar her IIED
claim because her amended complaint alleged she was discriminated
against "after she complained about suspected Equal Pay Act
violations[.]" She relies on Furukawa v. Honolulu Zoological
Society, 85 Hawai#i 7, 936 P.2d 643 (1997) and Takaki v. Allied
Machinery Corp., 87 Hawai#i 57, 951 P.2d 507 (App. 1998).
The claims in Furukawa were for discriminatory
employment practices in violation of HRS § 378-2 (Supp. 1996).5
The Hawai#i Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) has jurisdiction over
claims under HRS § 378-2. See HRS § 378-4 (Supp. 1996 & 2015).
The supreme court actually ruled: "The law is explicit that 'a
workers' compensation claim or remedy does not bar relief on
claims filed with the [HCRC].'" 85 Hawai#i at 19, 936 P.2d at
655 (quoting HRS § 368–17(b)). Sakaguchi's amended complaint
does not allege that UH violated HRS § 378-2.
Takaki also involved an alleged violation of HRS
§ 378-2. There, we held that "Furukawa would permit Takaki to
maintain an action against Appellees for intentional infliction
of emotional distress caused by terminating him in violation of
HRS § 378–2." 87 Hawai#i at 68, 951 P.2d at 518.

5
HRS § 378-2 (Supp. 1996) provided, in relevant part:
It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice:
(1) Because of race, sex, sexual orientation, age,
religion, color, ancestry, disability, marital
status, or arrest and court record:
(A) For any employer to refuse to hire or
employ or to bar or discharge from
employment, or otherwise to discriminate
against any individual in compensation or
in the terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment[.]
Furukawa, 85 Hawai#i at 9 n.1, 936 P.2d at 645 n.1.

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

Sakaguchi's amended complaint did not allege she was
discriminated against in violation of HRS § 378-2. It alleged
she was discriminated against, in violation of the HWPA, because
she complained about UH violating the Equal Pay Act. Her IIED
claim against UH was barred by HRS § 386-5.6 Kamaka, 117 Hawai#i
at 109, 176 P.3d at 108.

B. The Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction over
Sakaguchi's claims based on separate,
distinguishable HWPA violations that occurred
before February 28, 2016; her claims for pay
differential and earning disparity after
February 28, 2016 are not time-barred.

Sakaguchi filed her complaint on February 28, 2018. UH
moved for summary judgment on the HWPA claims that accrued before
February 28, 2016. UH relied on the HRS § 661-5 two-year statute
of limitations. The Circuit Court treated the motion as one to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction,7 and granted it.
Sakaguchi argues that the Circuit Court erred by basing
its ruling on lack of jurisdiction, and that her claims for pre-
February 28, 2016 discrimination were not time-barred under the
continuing tort doctrine.
HRS § 378-62 (2015) provides, in relevant part:

An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise
discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's
compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of
employment because:

(1) The employee . . . reports or is about to report
to the employer, or reports or is about to
report to a public body, verbally or in writing,
a violation or a suspected violation of:
(A) A law, rule, ordinance, or regulation,
adopted pursuant to law of this State, a
political subdivision of this State, or
the United States; or

6
Sakaguchi did not argue, to the Circuit Court or on appeal, that
she asserted an IIED claim against Konan under HRS § 386-8(k).
7
A court deciding an HRCP Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction may review evidence outside the pleadings to
resolve factual disputes over the existence of jurisdiction. Yamane v.
Pohlson, 111 Hawai#i 74, 81, 137 P.3d 980, 987 (2006).

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

(B) A contract executed by the State, a
political subdivision of the State, or the
United States,
unless the employee knows that the report is
false[.]

The HWPA is a remedial statute, liberally construed to
accomplish the purpose for which it was enacted. Crosby v. Dep't
of Budget & Fin., 76 Hawai#i 332, 341–42, 876 P.2d 1300, 1309–10
(1994). Sakaguchi has the burden to prove she engaged in
protected conduct, and that it was a "substantial or motivating
factor" for UH engaging in prohibited conduct. Id. at 342, 876
P.2d at 1310. If she sustains her burden of proof, the "employer
can defend affirmatively by showing that the [prohibited conduct]
would have occurred regardless of the protected activity." Id.

(1) HRS § 661-5 imposes a jurisdictional
limitation on the State's consent to be
sued.

UH is a department of the State. HRS § 26-4(7) (2009).
It is an "employer" under the HWPA. HRS § 378-61 (2015). The
circuit courts have jurisdiction over HWPA claims against UH
under HRS § 304A-108(a)8 (2007) and HRS § 661-1(1) (2016). "HRS
§ 661-1 . . . contains a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for
claims against the State of Hawai#i that are founded upon a
statute[.]" Garner v. State, 122 Hawai#i 150, 160, 223 P.3d 215,
225 (App. 2009).
HRS § 661-5 (2016) provides, in relevant part:

Every claim against the State, cognizable under this part,
shall be forever barred unless the action is commenced
within two years after the claim first accrues[.]

8
HRS § 304A-108(a) (2007) provides, in relevant part:

Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, all claims
arising out of the acts or omissions of the university . . .
its officers, or its employees, including claims permitted
against the State under chapter 661, part I, . . . may be
brought only pursuant to this section and only against the
university. . . . All defenses available to the State, as
well as all limitations on actions against the State, shall
be applicable to the university.

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

An HWPA claim accrues when the employee knows or should
have known, Blair v. Ing, 95 Hawai#i 247, 264, 21 P.3d 452, 469
(2001), that their employer has taken adverse action because of
the employee's protected activity, Andrade v. County of Hawai#i,
145 Hawai#i 265, 277, 451 P.3d 1, 13 (App. 2019).
The legislature did not consent to UH being sued for
violating the HWPA over two years after the claim first accrued.
The time bar is jurisdictional. Cf. Okutsu v. State, 153 Hawai#i
192, 196, 528 P.3d 956, 960 (App. 2023) (holding that State Tort
Liability Act statute of limitations, HRS § 662-4 (2016), "is a
term of the legislature's consent for the State to be sued in
tort"). Thus, if a lawsuit alleging UH violated the HWPA is
filed "more than two years after the claim accrued, state courts
have no subject matter jurisdiction over the claim." Cf. id. at
199, 528 P.3d at 963.

(2) The Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction
over HWPA claims based on separate,
distinguishable violations that occurred
before February 28, 2016.

Sakaguchi does not controvert that she knew, before
February 28, 2016, that she was excluded from specific grant
applications, funding opportunities, projects, meetings,
conferences, legislative hearings, and initiatives. The Circuit
Court lacked jurisdiction over the HWPA claims based on those
alleged violations. The Circuit Court also lacked jurisdiction
over Sakaguchi's claim based on Konan allegedly threatening to
take away her project space and causing her computer servers to
become intermittently inaccessible in 2015.
The continuous tort doctrine does not apply to those
claims under the circumstances of this case, because Sakaguchi
alleged a series of separate, distinguishable violations by UH
and Konan. See Boyd v. Univ. of Haw., No. 30547, 2012 WL 503797,
at *3 (Haw. App. Feb. 13, 2012) (mem. op.) (holding that
continuous tort doctrine did not apply where HWPA claimant
alleged "a series of separate and distinguishable acts"), cert.
rejected, No. SCWC-30547, 2012 WL 2026001 (Haw. June 4, 2012).

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

(3) Sakaguchi's claims for pay differential
and earning disparity after February 28,
2016 are not time-barred.

Sakaguchi's amended complaint alleged that her
Department of Anthropology colleagues recommended she become
department chair in February 2014, but Konan rejected the
recommendation, which deprived her of a pay increase.
Although the alleged HWPA violation occurred over two
years before Sakaguchi sued UH, the statute of limitations for
her periodic pay claim begins to run on each paycheck as it
becomes due. Garner, 122 Hawai#i at 169, 223 P.3d at 234.
Sakaguchi's claim for pay differential (for being wrongfully not
selected department chair) before February 28, 2016 is barred by
HRS § 661-5, but her claim for additional pay due from
February 28, 2016 onward is not time-barred. Id.
Sakaguchi's amended complaint also alleged:

37. Despite Dr. Sakaguchi's contributions,
experience, and state, national and international
recognition in her field, her earnings are near the bottom
10th percentile compared to similarly situated UHM faculty,
who are paid at rates in the 75th percentile or higher.

The claim for earnings disparity after February 28,
2016, caused by UH's violation of the HWPA is not time-barred.
Garner, 122 Hawai#i at 169, 223 P.3d at 234.

C. Sakaguchi's claim for not being named
department chair was not subject to a CBA;
her claim for earnings disparity was subject
to a CBA but was actionable under HRS
§ 378-66.

UH argued that Sakaguchi "fail[ed] to exhaust all
administrative remedies with respect to submitting a request for
pay increases for merit, equity or market as a Special Salary
Adjustment ("SSA") pursuant to the Collective Bargaining
Agreement ("CBA") between the University of Hawai#i Professional
Assembly and the University of Hawai#i Board of Regents." Copies
of the CBAs were appended to UH's motion for summary judgment.

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

UH argues that Sakaguchi "could have submitted an SSA
request if she sought an increase in her salary from the
University based on merit and equity principles." But
Sakaguchi's amended complaint did not allege she was entitled to,
or wrongfully deprived of, an SSA based on merit, equity, or
market. Her claim for back- and front-pay was made under HRS
§ 378-64, as a remedy for Konan wrongfully rejecting her
colleagues' recommendation she be named department chair. The
CBAs do not provide for an award of back- or front-pay for UH's
violation of the HWPA. The exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies
requirement does not apply to that claim.
Sakaguchi's earnings disparity claim is covered by the
CBAs. But HRS § 378-66 (2015) provides, in relevant part:

(b) . . . Where a collective bargaining agreement
provides inferior rights and remedies to those provided in
this subpart, the provisions of this subpart shall supersede
and take precedence over the rights, remedies, and
procedures provided in collective bargaining agreements.

The HWPA provides remedies including "injunctive
relief, or actual damages, or both within two years after the
occurrence of the alleged violation[,]" HRS § 378-63(a) (2015),
and "payment of back wages, full reinstatement of fringe benefits
and seniority rights, actual damages, or any combination of these
remedies. . . . [and] all or a portion of the costs of
litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees and witness
fees," HRS § 378-64 (2015). Sakaguchi was not required to
exhaust the remedies available to her under the CBAs before
proceeding with her earnings disparity claim under the HWPA,
which provides rights and remedies superior to those provided by
the CBAs.

D. The Circuit Court did not err by granting
summary judgment for UH on Sakaguchi's other
post-February 28, 2016 HWPA claims.

UH moved for summary judgment on Sakaguchi's remaining
HWPA claims — those based on alleged violations occurring after
February 28, 2016. Because Sakaguchi had the burden of proof at

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

trial, Crosby, 76 Hawai#i at 342, 876 P.2d at 1310, UH had the
burden to show (1) there was no genuine issue of material fact on
the essential elements of the claim addressed by the motion, and
(2) the uncontroverted facts entitled it to judgment as a matter
of law. Ralston, 129 Hawai#i at 56, 292 P.3d at 1286.
If UH satisfied its burden, Sakaguchi had to
"demonstrate specific facts, as opposed to general allegations,
that present a genuine issue worthy of trial." Ralston, 129
Hawai#i at 56-57, 292 P.3d at 1286-87.
UH's motion dealt with nine alleged violations of the
HWPA that occurred after February 28, 2016.
(1) Sakaguchi claimed to have been "excluded" from the
Pacific Pandemic Preparedness Hui workshop in March 2016. Her
response to a UH interrogatory stated:

I am talking about the Pacific Pandemic Preparedness
Conference that has been noted in our previous documents.
This conference was held on March 14-15, 2016 in Saunders
Hall in the same building that my office is in, four floors
above, in the SSRI office. She was the opening speaker
because it is in the Social Sciences building, however, and
not because of her expertise. I had designed pandemic avian
influenza training and worked with the College of Tropical
Agriculture in 2006 and am probably the only one in my
College with that experience. I thought I could have
benefited [sic] from attending and contributed to the
dialogue. My colleagues in the field from out-of-state
visited me at my office so we could walk together to the
conference, not knowing that I had not even been invited by
the College to attend. They were surprised. However, they
informed me that they paid several hundred dollars in
conference fees to attend but were required to write parts
of the grant and a matching powerpoint [sic] presentation
for Kim to obtain funding from a granting agency for two
days.
In September 2016, Konan states she was a co-organizer
and the event was public so anyone could attend. She misses
the point. There was a fair day dedicated to preparedness
where disaster information and documents were shared. NDPTC
[(the National Disaster Preparedness Training Center)] and
others were present at the fair. I was unable to
participate in the fair and share my work, which would help
publicize my program. Konan continues to involve only Kim
while denying all opportunities for me to participate in
this field at the college and campus level.

UH submitted Konan's declaration, which stated that
Sakaguchi "was never intentionally excluded from any workshop,

11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

projects or opportunities between 2016 between [sic] March 2016
to October 14, 2018 as she alleges." Konan specifically stated:

5. With respect to the March 2016 Pacific Pandemic
Preparedness Health Hui workshop at [sic] occurred at the
Saunders Building at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, I
was invited to give some opening remarks in my capacity as
the Dean of the College of Social Sciences by the Pacific
Risk Management Ohana (also known as PRiMO), but was not
involved in organizing this two day event or inviting the
participants who were members of PRiMO as it was being
coordinated by Gregg Nakano whose organization I understood
extended invitations to individuals who had maintained
and/or requested a professional affiliation with or
membership in PriMO. This would apply to the October 4,
2018 Pacific Pandemic Preparedness Summit (1918 Centennial)
which was organized by PRiMO over which I had absolutely no
involvement, participation, or control over any invitations
to that event to PRiMO members.

Konan's declaration satisfied UH's burden of production
under Ralston.
Sakaguchi submitted a declaration in opposition. It
stated:

14. In March 2016, I was excluded from a special
workshop held at UH entitled the Pacific Pandemic
Preparedness Hui that was organized by the Pacific Risk
Management Ohana, even though the subject matter of the
workshop was directly related to my Pacific EMPRINTS work.
Defendant Konan was a key speaker at this workshop.

. . . .
34. Defendant Konan continues to engage in
gaslighting. Certain faculty members of the College of
Social Sciences were personally invited to the March 2016
Health [sic] Hui workshop, whereas I was not, even though my
program, Pacific EMPRINTS, provided training in pandemics
and is recognized at the nationa1 level for this training.
35. The UN-UH Pacific Preparedness Summit in October
2018 is a collaboration on Human Security Studies degree
program. Denise Konan claims it involved PRIMO. It is a
degree program therefore the UH is involved. PRIMO is
involved with natural hazards in the Pacific Island
communities.

. . . .
38. . . . Not informing me of workshops . . . denies
me the chance to participate as an expert in workshops
relevant to my field, and diminishes my reputation in the
field that I have built up.

Sakaguchi did not show specific material facts by, for
example, submitting declarations from other faculty members

12
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

stating Konan had invited them to the March 2016 Pacific Pandemic
Preparedness Hui workshop but said to not include Sakaguchi. She
did not sustain her burden to "demonstrate specific facts, as
opposed to general allegations, that present a genuine issue
worthy of trial." Ralston, 129 Hawai#i at 56-57, 292 P.3d at
1286-87.
(2) Sakaguchi claimed to have been "excluded" from the
Great Tsunami in Japan Conference in September 2016. UH
submitted a declaration from its College of Social Sciences
Systems Manager, Harry Partika, stating that on September 7,
2016, he "transmitted a College of Social Sciences' Event Notice
on 'The Great Tsunami in Japan['] documentary premiere scheduled
for September 17, 2016 to the entire faculty of the College of
Social Sciences which included Ann Sakaguchi."
Sakaguchi did not deny receiving Partika's event
notice. Her declaration in opposition stated: "In September
2016, I was excluded from the Great Tsunami in Japan Conference
held at UH which I understand was organized in part by Defendant
Konan." This general allegation did not present a genuine issue
of material fact about whether UH excluded her from the event.
(3) Sakaguchi claimed to have been "excluded" from
(a) a 2016 Lloyd's Register Foundation event, (b) public hearings
on Senate Bill No. 257 and House Bill No. 2582, and (c) an
April 2018 Memorandum of Understanding between the Commander of
the United States Navy Pacific Command and the UH President.
(a) Konan's declaration stated:

6. As for [Sakaguchi]'s claim that she was
personally excluded from the Lloyd's Register Foundation
("Foundation") in March 2016, there was no workshop and my
sole involvement in 2016 was responding to a March 9, 2016
email from Michael Bruno stating that he had personal hopes
that University of Hawai#i could obtain "some funding from
Lloyd's to convene a workshop and jump-start this activity
at UH." In my email to Michael Bruno, I had attached a
University of Hawai#i Disaster Risk Reduction & Resiliency
Landscape Assessment that included [Sakaguchi]'s
biographical information as the Director of Pacific EMPRINTS
and her role in emergency management and preparedness. But
there was no activity on March 9, 2016 that [Sakaguchi] was
excluded or denied an opportunity from and there were no
grant or funding opportunities offered by this Foundation in
2016 that I am aware of.

13
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

UH Mânoa Provost Michael S. Bruno submitted a
declaration stating:

10. I am also personally familiar with the Lloyd's
Register Foundation ("Foundation") as I served as the Chair
of the Advisory Board and do remember passing along
information about the Foundation to several faculty members
in the College of Social Sciences which could have included
both Dr. Karl Kim and Dr. Ann Sakaguchi.
11. Unfortunately, the Foundation did not offer any
grants or funding opportunities to the University of Hawai #i
at Manoa.

(Emphasis added.)
Sakaguchi declared:

36. Provost Bruno mentions the possibility of
involving me in the Lloyd [sic] Foundation initiatives in
October 2016 but Denise Konan or her staff did not contact
me and therefore excluded me from a potential opportunity.
I did not know that Provost Bruno had suggested my name
until after 2018, i.e., after discovery of this case.
. . . .

40. As the dean of the College of Social Sciences,
Denise Konan is kept in the loop of various funding
opportunities by the administration, not me. Konan declared
herself as the "POC" (point of contact) based on an informal
declaration from former University president Greenwood to
establish a University disaster management discipline.
Attached as Exhibit "15" is a true and correct copy of an
email from Defendant Konan to Michael Bruno dated March 14,
2016, reflecting that Konan is the POC.[ 9] She used that
informal authority to unilaterally determine the level of
participation by faculty in the initiative, even though she
herself was not knowledgeable in the discipline. Given this
POC designation, it is part of her responsibility as the POC

9
Sakaguchi's Exhibit 15, a copy of an email from Konan to Bruno
"Re: Lloyd's and Resilience Engineering" dated March 14, 2016, stated:

Hi Michael,
It was a pleasure to chat the other day! I'm really glad
that you have a strong interest in disaster resilience.
When I first started as Dean, President Greenwood wanted to
rally our combined assets in this area to develop a new
field of disaster sciences, and I was her POC. Velma and I
put together the attached landscape assessment to
demonstrate our considerable expertise in the field. At the
time, we were launching the APDR3, which has since become
"R3ady Asia Pacific," funded by Ford, Rockefeller, and
Chevron. Of course, it is a few years old now!

We have significant capacity and there would be strong
benefits of having a campus led effort. Your suggestion of
a workshop is very good.

14
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

of the university to notify faculty of these upcoming
opportunities, well in advance of the date. None of the
participants she selected possessed the scope and degree of
disaster management that I could offer.
41. I would not be able to fully and actively
participate as a speaker in a workshop, submit a proposal,
or set up a booth if I was not advised or invited to these
grants or workshops, in a timely manner.
42. I have expressed interest to attend workshops
and related activities to Denise Konan a number of times,
contrary to what she states in her declaration. The first
such episode I recall was on April 25, 2012 when I met
Denise Konan, with one of my instructors, Dr. Elizabeth
Char, the Medical Director of the National Disaster Life
Support Regional Training Center-Pacific, and current
Director of the Department of Health in Denise Konan's
office. It was at that meeting where Dr. Char and I both
expressed interest in getting more involved with activities.

43. There were other workshops that I never knew
about until discovery in this case, such as but not limited
to the Rockefeller Foundation, Tohoku initiatives, PACOM
initiatives, Lloyd Foundation and the Ford Foundation.

Sakaguchi's general allegations did not show Konan knew
of specific events that Sakaguchi did not. Nor did Sakaguchi
explain why, despite being the "Director of Pacific Emergency
Management, Preparedness, and Response Information Network and
Training Services ('Pacific EMPRINTS') since 2005 and Director of
the National Disaster Life Support Regional Training Center-
Pacific ('NDLS RTC-Pacific') since 2007[,]" Konan would have
better access to information about third-party sponsored events
related to Sakaguchi's own field of expertise.
(b) Konan's declaration stated:

8. On February 15, 2017 I did testify before the
Senate Committees on Agriculture & Environment, Public
Safety, Intergovernmental, [sic] & Military Affairs, & [sic]
Higher Education to respond to Senate Bill No. 257, which
proposed to establish a temporary food security task force
at the national disaster preparedness training center at the
University of Hawaii and deferred all comments to NDPTC, but
requested that the Legislature "look into extending the
reporting period as funding and coordination may take time
to formalize", but this Bill never passed. Since this was a
public hearing, I cannot exclude anyone from testifying or
participating.
9. House Bill 2582 proposed a task force to make
recommendations for the Hawaii Disaster Preparedness Plan,
requiring NDPTC to assist the task force in preparing that
Plan and at a February 8, 2018 Public Hearing, I merely
provided information on the costs that would be incurred for
NDPTC to carry out that request, but otherwise was never

15
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

involved in the drafting of this legislation or proposal of
this Bill. Since this was a public hearing, I could not
exclude anyone from testifying or participating.

Sakaguchi's declaration stated:

39. I did not state that Defendant Konan prevented
me from testifying at the legislature for Senate Bill 257 in
2017. This is entirely fabricated. I stated that it was
yet another example that I was excluded from a potential
funding opportunity by Dean Konan. The fact that it
received funding or not is irrelevant to the issue. It's
the ability to have the same opportunity as any other
faculty that is involved in the discipline. She claims the
same for House Bill 2582 that she did not prevent me from
testifying. I did not claim this either and it is another
gaslighting fabricated statement by Denise Konan to
discredit me.

Sakaguchi did not show she was prevented from
testifying at public hearings, or from offering written
testimony, on legislation relating to her own field of expertise.
(c) Konan's declaration stated:

10. Finally, on April 20, 2018, a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the United States Pacific
Command and the University of Hawai#i was signed by
President David Lassner and the Admiral Harry B. Harris Jr,
the U.S. Navy Commander for USPACOM to develop strategies
and plans for collaborative research activities, identify
shared educational opportunities, promote ongoing
communications to identify opportunities for expanding
future education and project related activities and
collaborate on emerging technologies, research and
innovation. This process began before I became Dean of the
College of Social Sciences and involved then Presidents
David McClain and subsequently MC Greenwood. The MOU did
not exclude [Sakaguchi] from engagements with PACOM. I did
not participate in the formation of this MOU.

Sakaguchi's declaration does not mention the Memorandum
of Understanding, or explain how she could have been "excluded"
from a document signed only by President Lassner and Admiral
Harris.
Sakaguchi did not sustain her burden to show, by
admissible evidence, a genuine issue of material fact about UH
excluding her from these events.
(4) Sakaguchi's amended complaint alleged:

34. In May 2017, Dr. Sakaguchi complained to her
union regarding Dr. Konan's failure to comply with the
union's collective bargaining agreement, by failing to
respond to Dr. Sakaguchi's request for sabbatical leave.

16
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

. . . .
h. In April 2017, Defendant Konan purported
to have "lost" Dr. Sakaguchi's request for sabbatical
paperwork that was submitted in January 2017.

UH Human Resources Specialist Patti Au submitted a
declaration stating:

4. It is my recollection that after Dr. Sakaguchi
submitted her request in February, 2017, the paperwork for
the sabbatical was approved by Dr. Christian Peterson, but
it was misplaced and when Dr. Peterson reminded me of the
sabbatical request on April 6, 2017, I had informed him that
I did not recall seeing the paperwork for Dr. Sakaguchi's
sabbatical request and would check with the other staff in
my office but that if there was a copy available, would he
please send it over and our office could work off the copy.

5. After I received a copy of the paperwork for
Dr. Sakaguchi's sabbatical request sometime after April 6,
2017 but prior to April 19, 2017, I handed the request to
Dean Denise Konan and she approved it immediately.
6. On April 19, 2017 I notified Christian Peterson
that "Ann's sabbatical leave has been approved for the
period 11-01-17 to 04-30-18" and that a notification letter
was forthcoming.
7. I do not believe that Dr. Sakaguchi's sabbatical
request was intentionally delayed by Dean Denise Konan
because when I handed her the copy of Dr. Sakaguchi's
sabbatical request, she signed it immediately and this was
slightly less than seven (7) months before Dr. Sakaguchi's
planned sabbatical.

Sakaguchi's declaration stated:

17. In April 2017, Defendant Konan purported to have
"lost" my request for sabbatical paperwork that I submitted
in February 2017. Approximately six months prior to the
February 2017 sabbatical request, I submitted another
sabbatical request which Denise Konan rejected because the
request had to be submitted six months before the start date
of the sabbatical so the submission timeline is critical.
Denise Konan responded to my request for a status of the
sabbatical only after I called the union and notified them
that I did not get a response to my sabbatical request.

. . . .
23. Patti Au's declaration states she recalls I
submitted my sabbatical leave request in February 2017,
which was misplaced for two months, and was found only after
the Anthropology Department Chair Christian Peterson

17
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

reminded her about it. Patty Au's declaration is
inexplicable. It does not explain how a document as
important as a sabbatical leave request can be misplaced for
a period of two months. If not for my initiative, the
request would never have been processed within the required
deadlines denying my faculty rights to sabbatical leave.

Sakaguchi's declaration admits the sabbatical issue was
covered under the CBA. See HRS § 378-66. It appears, however,
that pursuing her administrative remedies was unnecessary because
her sabbatical leave was approved well before it was scheduled to
be taken. She did not meet her burden to show she was unlawfully
deprived of sabbatical leave.
(5) Paragraph 35 of Sakaguchi's amended complaint
alleged:

j. In the later part of 2017, Dr. Sakaguchi
attempted to hire a part-time, entry-level employee.
Dr. Sakaguchi's routine request was sent to Vassilis L.
Syrmos, UH Vice President for Research and Innovation, for
approval. The College of Social Sciences Fiscal Officer
remarked to Dr. Sakaguchi that the necessity of formal
approval from Mr. Syrmos was highly unusual and was not
required for other similar faculty requests.

In response to an interrogatory about that allegation,
Sakaguchi stated:

ANSWER: No hire was identified when the Research Associate
position was requested to SSRI in late 2017. [Sakaguchi]
later decided not to go forward with this hire, so the
recruitment was promptly closed without making an offer to
an individual.

Sakaguchi failed to show she was "discriminate[d]
against . . . regarding [her] compensation, terms, conditions,
location, or privileges of employment" when she attempted to
obtain approval for a part-time research associate position. She
did not show approval was denied, and she admitted deciding not
to hire anyone for that position.
(6) Paragraph 35 of Sakaguchi's amended complaint
alleged:

i. Beginning in July 2017, Pacific EMPRINTS
servers are again malfunctioning, likely at the direction of
UH Administrators.

18
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

UH College of Social Sciences Systems Manager Partika's
declaration stated:

4. Back in 2007, I personally assisted in
configuring to two web servers, SQL server and file/print
serve [sic] for Ann Sakaguchi and Pacific EMPRINTS and
Attachment "1" is a true and correct list of the Pacific
EMPRINTS sever [sic] Planning Document prepared on March 20,
2007 that I helped set up.

. . . .
6. Sometime in April or May 2015, Ann Sakaguchi had
informed me that the Pacific EMPRINTS servers became
inaccessible and the website had "crashed."
7. The multiple problems with Pacific EMPRINTS'
computer servers were not caused because any UH
Administrator had allegedly "redirected the servers to other
IP and MAC addresses" but rather were attributable to the
need to upgrade the hardware, replace the main computer
servers that were at least 7 or more years old and perform
backup of the website data.. [sic]

10. After Pacific EMPRINTS website returned online
on July 7, 2015, Ann Sakaguchi reported that the estimated
costs were too high and did not perform the recommended
upgrades.

11. On September 12, 2017 I reported to the UH
hostmaster that Pacific EMPRINTS' webservers had "crashed
due to significant hardware failure" of which Attachment "3"
[is] a true and correct copy of said email that I sent.

12. On October 18, 2017, the Pacific EMPRINTS'
website went down again and I had informed her that the
network switch was not the problem and instructed her to
check the SQL server.
13. On February 14, 2018, I had informed Ann
Sakaguchi that "last August-September that the production
web serve [sic] and data storage array were inoperable
causing the SQL data to be lost because of no back up and
needed to be replaced or upgraded but that the network
switch did 'indeed work'".

14. The multiple problems with Pacific EMPRINTS'
computers are not attributable [sic] any failed network
switch or redirection by UH Administrators to other IP and
MAC addresses as claimed by Ann Sakaguchi.

19
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Sakaguchi's declaration stated:

18. Beginning in July 2017, Pacific EMPRINTS servers
were malfunctioning, likely at the direction of UH
Administrators. I asked the UH IT Desk for help in late
2017 for a network switch recommendation but was informed
that the protocol was to go through the College of Social
Sciences IT Manager. However, the College of Sciences IT
Manager reports to Dean Konan, and would not assist me.
This is similar to how, beginning in April 2015, the Pacific
EMPRINTS servers became intermittently inaccessible,
sometimes for as long as three months at a time. In one
instance, the UH Help Desk and other UH IT personnel
informed me that the servers had been "redirected" by UH
Administrators to other IP and MAC addresses. During these
periods, those interested in Pacific EMPRINTS courses were
unable to enroll.
. . . .

30. As the IT "manager" for the College of Social
Sciences, Harry Partika is a gatekeeper and acts for Dean
Konan in allocating resources to support information
technology needs of faculty. His technical skills are
limited to that necessary to procure, install or repair
desktop computers and related equipment typically required
by faculty. He does not possess the skills required to
install, operate and trouble shoot complex servers.
31. Harry Partika did not tell me that the network
switch was fine. I know this because he never responded to
my calls and emails, so he couldn't have told me the network
switch was fine.
32. With regards to Pacific EMPRINTS server rack
disclosure (Attachment 2 to the Motion), Harry Partika's
statement of a non-working RAID Disk Storage as a
significant problem exhibits his lack of technical knowledge
of the server configuration. He probably thought it was
critical because the name contained the term, "Storage". He
was unaware that it did not contain any production site
data. The SQL server was operational and that is why it
continued to work until 2017, when the network switch issue
occurred.

33. These are some of the computer specialists I
hired to build my servers:

a. Phil Page holds an IT and GIS (Geographic
Information Systems) degree;

b. Randy Glidden, a computer science graduate with
SQL database background and programming
experience;
c. Chuan Su was my webmaster programmer who has a
master's degree in computer programming.

d. ArcGIS server specialists from ESRI in Redlands,
California, who did the initial install and
initial transfer of the "ESRI/GIS" server in
2007.
The UH IT team also assisted as necessary.

20
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The Circuit Court correctly sustained UH's hearsay
objection to Sakaguchi's statement in paragraph 31 that the "IT
HELP desk said it might be a switch issue[.]"
We disregard the conclusory statements and opinions in
paragraphs 30, 31, and 32 of Sakaguchi's declaration because she
failed to show she had the education, training, or experience
necessary to comment on the technical issues she purported to
address, see Rule 702, Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE),
Chapter 626, Hawaii Revised Statutes (2016), and she did not show
she had personal knowledge of Partika's technical ability or what
he "thought," see HRE Rule 602.
Sakaguchi did not rebut Partika's testimony that she
did not perform the server upgrades he had recommended in 2015.
Nor did Sakaguchi show, through declarations by Phil Page, Randy
Glidden, Chuan Su, any "ArcGIS server specialists from ESRI in
Redlands, California," or any other admissible evidence, that
Pacific EMPRINTS' servers malfunctioned "at the direction of UH
Administrators."
Partika's supplemental declaration authenticated
several emails to and from Sakaguchi between October 2017 and
February 2018. On October 18, 2017, Sakaguchi emailed Partika
that "Chuan looked into this and thought this is a network switch
issue and that it was likely not the server itself." Sakaguchi
submitted no declaration by Chuan stating that a network switch
was the problem, or that it was UH's responsibility. On
February 14, 2018, Partika emailed Sakaguchi, with an attachment,
explaining why "your network switch does in deed [sic] work" and
that the problem "is with your SQL server and data storage
array."
Sakaguchi failed to sustain her burden to show a
genuine issue of material fact through admissible evidence that
Pacific EMPRINTS' servers malfunctioned in 2017 "at the direction
of UH Administrators."

21
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(7) Paragraph 35 of Sakaguchi's amended complaint
alleged:

k. In the later part of 2017, Dr. Sakaguchi
attempted to hire a research assistant from Japan. The
Research Corporation of UH ("RCUH") Administrators informed
Dr. Sakaguchi that RCUH policy dictates she must hire
someone in Hawai#i. There was no such RCUH policy and this
residential hiring restriction has not been imposed on any
faculty member other than Dr. Sakaguchi.

Sakaguchi's declaration similarly stated:

20. In the later part of 2017, I attempted to hire a
research assistant from Japan. The Research Corporation of
UH ("RCUH") Administrators informed me that RCUH policy
dictates she [sic] must hire someone in Hawai #i. There was
no such RCUH policy and this residential hiring restriction
has not been imposed on any faculty member.

Sakaguchi submitted no evidence that "there was no such
RCUH policy" that she hire someone in Hawai#i.
And even if Sakaguchi's allegation were true, she did
not sue RCUH. HRS § 304A-3001 (2007) establishes RCUH "as a body
corporate[.]" Its affairs are managed and controlled by a board
of directors, which elects a chair. HRS § 304A-3002 (Supp.
2017). It has the power to sue and be sued in its own name. HRS
§ 304A-3003 (2007). RCUH's alleged conduct is irrelevant because
RCUH is not a defendant, and Sakaguchi offered neither evidence
nor argument that RCUH's alleged conduct should be attributed to
UH.
(8) Paragraph 35 of Sakaguchi's amended complaint
alleged:

l. In February 2018, Dr. Sakaguchi's faculty
colleague informed Dr. Sakaguchi that when said colleague
requested to do a training project with Dr. Sakaguchi in the
field of disaster management, the UH Vice Chancellor for
Research and UH Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
discouraged the colleague and informed her she must work
with Dr. Kim instead.

Provost Bruno was Vice-Chancellor for Research and
Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs in February 2018.
His declaration stated:

22
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

5. I have personal familiarity with the operation
and judging of the 2017 Strategic Investment Initiative
campus-wide competition for research funding to faculty
members for the past six (6) years as I had personally
started it and there have been three (3) awards over that
time period.

6. During the Fall of 2017, I am informed and
believe that Dr. Kristine Qureshi served as one of the
committee judges for the 2017 Strategic Investment
Initiative campus-wide research funding competition to
decide which grant proposal would receive an award.
7. I did not serve as either a judge or
decision-maker on which faculty members' grant proposal
would receive an award from the 2017 Strategic Investment
Initiative campus-wide competition.
8. I never asked nor suggested to Dr. Kristine
Qureshi that she should work on a research grant proposal
with Dr. Karl Kim for the 2017 Strategic Investment
Initiative campus-wide competition.

9. Between 2017-2018, I never attempted to
discourage Dr. Kristine Qureshi from working on a research
grant proposal with Dr. Ann Sakaguchi on the 2017 Strategic
Investment Initiative as that would have been directly
contrary to the process of how the campus-wide research
competition operated and/or was judged.

Sakaguchi's declaration stated:

21. In February 2018, my faculty colleague John
Casken informed me that when said colleague requested to do
a training project with me in the field of disaster
management, the UH Vice Chancellor for Research and UH
Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Michael Bruno,
discouraged the colleague and informed her she must work
with Dr. Kim instead.

The Circuit Court correctly sustained UH's objection to
hearsay. Sakaguchi did not offer a declaration or other
testimony from John Casken or Kristine Qureshi. She failed to
sustain her burden to show a genuine issue of material fact
through admissible evidence.
(9) Sakaguchi's amended complaint alleged:

36. Dr. Sakaguchi's salary can be greatly enhanced
depending on successful grant submissions that result in
external funding. By excluding Dr. Sakaguchi from funding
and grant opportunities and jeopardizing Dr. Sakaguchi's
grant submissions, Defendants suppress her salary and deny
her current and prospective economic and contractual
opportunities.

23
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

UH submitted the declaration of John (Jack) Barile, the
Interim Director of the Social Science Research Institute in the
UH College of Social Sciences. Barile stated:

3. On June 10, 2020, I conducted a search of all
grant and contract proposals by faculty members of the
College of Social Sciences, UHM as Principal Investigators
(PI) or Co-Investigators (who are the lead from the
University of Hawai#i) (Co-I) from January 1, 2010 to
present.
. . . .
5. From January 1, 2010 to present, Ann Sakaguchi
only submitted two grant or contract proposals as PI or
Co-I. One proposal was for a non-research grant processed
on April 11, 2011 and titled "Certified Training of RMI
Ministry of Health Medical Staff in Basic Life Support
Skills" and in which she was awarded a total of $50,375.00.
The other proposal for a research sub-grant processed on
January 23, 2013 and titled, "Enhancing Hazard Mitigation
and Resiliency in Complex Emergencies and Disasters Using
Point of Care, Cyberinfrastructure, and Cultural Outreach"
which was rejected. This grant was for $430,781.00.

Sakaguchi's declaration stated:

28. John Barile makes a false statement in his June
2020 declaration that I have a record of only two (2) grants
since 2011 and of that one was rejected. I have provided
counter evidence to the UH Office of the General Counsel of
applying for (i) a $25 million U.S. Agency for International
Development grant that I applied with Dr. Shirley Daniel in
2012; (ii) a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
HRSA grant for $1.3 million in 2013; (iii) a $386,100 Center
for Disease Control and Prevention grant with San Diego
State University in 2019; and (iv) approximately $860,000 in
National Disaster Life Support trainings [sic]. The
competitive grants mentioned above were "eliminated" from my
university records at the Office of Research Services, where
all faculty pursued grants, received or rejected, are
recorded. I did not know this information was eliminated
until John Barile had submitted his declaration in 2020.

Sakaguchi's declaration contradicts her allegation that
she was excluded from grant opportunities after February 28,
2016. And her memorandum opposing UH's motion did not explain
how or why, if her competitive grants were applied for and
received, the grants being "eliminated" from UH's records caused
her harm. She failed to sustain her burden to show a genuine
issue of material fact on this issue.

24
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

V. CONCLUSION

The Circuit Court's October 9, 2023 Final Judgment
against Sakaguchi on all claims asserted against Konan is
affirmed; the Final Judgment for UH and against Sakaguchi on
Claim 4 for IIED is affirmed; the Final Judgment for UH and
against Sakaguchi on Claim 1 is affirmed in part as to all claims
under the HWPA except those for pay differential from
February 28, 2016 onward for not being selected department chair
in alleged violation of the HWPA, and for earnings disparity from
February 28, 2016 onward caused by UH's alleged violation of the
HWPA, as discussed in sections IV.B.3. and IV.C. above.
This case is remanded to the Circuit Court for further
proceedings consistent with this memorandum opinion.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 14, 2026.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Margery S. Bronster, Chief Judge
Rex Y. Fujichaku,
Skylar G. Lucas, /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
for Plaintiff-Appellant Associate Judge
Ann Sakaguchi.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Carrie K.S. Okinaga, Associate Judge
Derek T. Mayeshiro,
for Defendants-Appellees
University of Hawai#i
and Denise Konan in her
capacity as Dean of the
University of Hawai#i at
Mânoa College of Social
Sciences.

Gary Y. Takeuchi,
Justin M. Luney,
for Defendant-Appellee
Denise Konan, individually.

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

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
14-APR-2026
07:51 AM
Dkt. 97 MO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CC181000321)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

1
The Honorable Dean E. Ochiai presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

I. BACKGROUND

Sakaguchi contends3 the Circuit Court erred by:
(1) dismissing her IIED claim based on the workers' compensation
exclusive remedy statute, HRS § 386-5; (2) dismissing her "Pre-

2
Sakaguchi has not appealed the summary judgment on her HWPA claim,
or the dismissal of her IIED claim, against Konan.
3
We have re-ordered and partially consolidated Sakaguchi's points
of error.

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

III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Motion to Dismiss

B. Motion for Summary Judgment

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

they alter our de novo standard of review regarding a summary
judgment ruling." Hilo Bay Marina, LLC v. State, 156 Hawai#i
478, 487, 575 P.3d 568, 577 (2025).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Sakaguchi's IIED claim, which was not based
on sexual harassment or sexual assault, was
barred by HRS § 386-5.

(Emphasis added.)
The supreme court has held:

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

5
HRS § 378-2 (Supp. 1996) provided, in relevant part:

It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice:
(1) Because of race, sex, sexual orientation, age,
religion, color, ancestry, disability, marital
status, or arrest and court record:

(A) For any employer to refuse to hire or
employ or to bar or discharge from
employment, or otherwise to discriminate
against any individual in compensation or
in the terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment[.]
Furukawa, 85 Hawai#i at 9 n.1, 936 P.2d at 645 n.1.

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

An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise
discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's
compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of
employment because:

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

(B) A contract executed by the State, a
political subdivision of the State, or the
United States,

unless the employee knows that the report is
false[.]