936 F. 2d 578 - Kishaba v. Hilton Hotels Corporation

MEMORANDUM**

Bunny Kishaba is a mixture of Hawaiian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Italian; she identifies with the Asian-Hawaiian culture. In March 1987 Kishaba resigned after seventeen years of employment with the Hilton Hawaiian Village Hotel in Honolulu. At the time she resigned, Kishaba was the Senior Executive Secretary to Earl McDonough, the Hawaii Region and Managing Director of the Village. Kishaba brought suit against the Hilton Hotels Corporation, the Hilton Hawaiian Village, and McDonough charging race discrimination in violation of Title VII and various pendent state claims, including breach of an implied-in-fact contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment on all but Kishaba's Title VII claim. Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F.Supp. 1565 (D.Hawaii 1988). After a nine day bench trial, the court held that Kishaba failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. Kishaba v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 737 F.Supp. 549 (D.Hawaii 1990). Kishaba appeals.

Title VII Claim.

Kishaba complains that the district court applied the wrong legal standards to her claim of race discrimination. We affirm the district court for the reasons stated in its thoughtful and thorough decision reported at 737 F.Supp. 549 (D.Hawaii 1990).

State Claims.

Kishaba argues the district court should not have granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on her implied-in-fact contract claim. Citing Kinoshita v. Canadian Pacific Airlines, 68 Haw. 594, 724 P.2d 110 (1986), Kishaba contends that issues of fact concerning the intent and sufficiency of Hilton's Employee Handbook preclude the court's ruling. The Employee Handbook, however, does not make any promises to the employee much less promise termination would only be for cause. Hilton's Employee Handbook is insufficient to alter the at-will nature of Kishaba's employment.

Kishaba also argues the district court erred in holding that Hawaii's Workers Compensation Law, H.R.S. Sec. 386-5, barred her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hawaii law on this point is clear: an injury is work-related as long as there is a "causal connection between the injury and any incidents or conditions of employment." Chung v. Animal Clinic, Inc., 63 Haw. 642, 636 P.2d 721, 725-26 (1981). We held that Hawaii's workers compensation law barred a claim for emotional distress in a similar context. See Courtney v. Canyon Tel. & App. Rental, 899 F.2d 845, 851 (9th Cir.1990) (race discrimination in violation of Section 1981). Kishaba's claim is barred under the law of Hawaii.

Order Limiting Discovery.

After filing suit, Kishaba's counsel contacted and met with Hilton's former Director of Human Resources. Raising the shield of attorney-client privilege, Hilton asked the court to prohibit Kishaba from engaging in ex parte contacts and meetings with specified former management employees. Over Kishaba's objections, the court granted the protective order. Kishaba challenges the limitations placed on her discovery. We hold her case was not prejudiced by the district court's ruling and affirm.

AFFIRMED.