Honolulu, Hawaii civil rights lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendants on civil rights violation theories.

Federal Courthouse - Honolulu, Hawaii

MoreLaw Legal News For Honolulu

Plaintiff Donald S. Guzman brings claims related to and following his December 2020 termination as the Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Maui. Guzman claims that his rights to privacy and due process under the U.S. Constitution have been violated and that he was discriminated against on account of a disability in violation of State law during the process culminating in his termination.





On March 1, 2019, the Mayor appointed Guzman to the position of Prosecuting Attorney for the County, with that appointment being approved by the Council on April 5, 2019.



On September 15, 2020, a complaint under the Violence in the Workplace Action Plan (VIWAP) was filed against Guzman. On September 24, 2020, in connection with the 9/15/20 VIWAP Complaint, the County hired an outside investigator to investigate an incident that occurred between Guzman and another attorney, Leslee Matthews (Matthews), working under his supervision. On October 9, 2020, the outside investigator issued a 156-page (including exhibits) Confidential Report to the County regarding the 9/15/20 VIWAP Complaint.



Among other findings in the 10/9/20 Report, the outside investigator determined that Guzman had threatened Matthews about how she was to respond to him via email, threatened Matthews' job security, "aggressively” grabbed an email out of Matthews' hand, prevented Matthews from speaking during a meeting by continuously interrupting her, and slammed his hand on a table and raised his voice during the same meeting. 10/9/20 Report at 21-22. The outside investigator concluded that these actions were "threats” in violation of the County's Workplace Violence Policy (VIW Policy). Id. at 22. The outside investigator also stated that certain matters had arisen during the investigation, but were beyond the scope of the same, including whether Guzman had violated the VIW Policy with respect to other employees. Id.



After issuance of the 10/9/20 Report, Guzman met with the Mayor on October 16 and 19, 2020. During the meetings, Guzman was not permitted to review the 10/9/20 Report, despite his request to do so.



Over the course of the two meetings, the Mayor gave Guzman the option of resigning, removal from office, or demotion. Guzman chose removal from office, id. at ¶ 13, and, on October 19, 2020, Guzman received a letter from the Mayor regarding his "Termination of Employment[, ]” 10/19/20 Letter from Mayor to Guzman (Termination Letter), Therein, it stated Guzman had violated the VIW Policy and, therefore, he would be placed on leave without pay while a resolution was sent to the Council requesting concurrence on his removal. Termination Letter at 3-4. On October 21, 2020, a letter and proposed resolution were sent to the Council requesting its concurrence on Guzman's removal as Prosecuting Attorney for the County.



On November 3, 2020, Guzman sent a letter to the Director of Council Legal Services regarding his "objections” to the 10/9/20 Report. 11/3/20 Letter from Guzman to David M. Raatz (11/3/20 Letter), Dkt. No. 20-4. Therein, Guzman asserted that, prior to the Mayor taking action with respect to his removal from office, he was denied due process and denied the opportunity to read the 10/9/20 Report. Id. at 1. Guzman also objected to the Mayor disclosing any incidents

unrelated to the 9/15/20 VIWAP Complaint and "request[ed]” that, before the Council, the scope of discussion be limited to Matthews and the 9/15/20 VIWAP Complaint. Id. at 2.



On November 4, 2020, the First Deputy Corporation Counsel for the County, Richelle Thomson, texted Guzman, asking if he would "like to review” the 10/9/20 Report.



The Council's Governance, Ethics, and Transparency (GET) Committee met on November 5 and 6, 2020 to discuss Guzman's removal as Prosecuting Attorney. At the November 5, 2020 meeting, 45 people signed up to testify regarding the proposed resolution to remove Guzman. The testifiers included friends and family of Guzman, his work colleagues, and members of the community. See generally id. at 16-83, 87-88. Each testifier was given three minutes of time to testify, followed by questions from councilmembers.



Generally, individuals testified both against and in favor of Guzman keeping his position, with certain of both sets of testifiers relying upon or referring to Guzman's workplace and non-workplace conduct prior to the incident with Matthews as support for their stance.



After this public testimony, Guzman himself testified for three minutes, followed by an additional five minutes later in the day. Id. at 84-85, 100-103. During his testimony, Guzman asked for the meeting to remain open to the public and waived his right to have any part of the meeting closed to the public. Guzman did so as well on November 6, 2020. Minutes of 11/6/20 GET Committee Meeting. Guzman was also questioned at length by members of the GET Committee about, generally, matters in the 10/9/20 Report, as well as matters not part of the 9/15/20 VIWAP Complaint. When asked, Guzman did not deny that he had violated the VIW Policy, as determined in the 10/9/20 Report.



Guzman reiterated that he had not received a copy of the 10/9/20 Report. 11/5/20 Minutes at 116, 118, 124, 128. It was not until the November 6, 2020 GET Committee Meeting that Guzman was able to report he had received and read a copy of the 10/9/20 Report.



Near the conclusion of the November 6, 2020 meeting, the Chair of the GET Committee recommended adopting the Mayor's proposed resolution to remove Guzman as Prosecuting Attorney.



On November 17, 2020, counsel for Guzman sent a letter to the County's Department of Corporation Counsel. 11/17/20 Letter from Roman Amaguin to the County (11/17/20 Letter), Dkt. No. 20-6. Therein, counsel argued that Guzman's due process and privacy rights under Section 1983 had been violated, and he had been discriminated against on account of a disability in violation of HRS Section 378-2(a)(1)(A) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. See generally id.



On December 4, 2020, the Council unanimously approved the resolution removing Guzman as Prosecuting Attorney, resulting in his termination. In doing so, among other things, the GET Committee observed that it had received

testimony in support of removing Guzman, including from employees of the County, with respect to workplace incidents that had "happened recently within the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney, but one occurred about five years ago in a previous workplace.” GET Committee Report No. 20-153 at 2. The GET Committee found this testimony to be "credible.” Id.



On December 30, 2020, Guzman filed a charge of disability discrimination and, on February 5, 2021, he received a notice of right to sue from the Hawai'i Civil Rights Commission (HCRC).

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment,



02/10/2023 ADVISORY ENTRY. Incorrect Attorney Filer- Please be

advised that Document 141 MOTION for Attorney Fees , Nontaxable Expenses, and Post Judgment Interest filed by Donald S. Guzman, was signed by an attorney other than the one identified as the e-filer. The name of the CM/ECF User under whose login and password the document is being electronically filed must correspond to the signature of the attorney signing the CM/ECF filed document. The filing party shall use its discretion should they feel the necessity to re-submit corrected filings. (eta) (Entered: 02/10/2023)



02/10/2023 142 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees Megan K. Kau appearing for Plaintiff Donald S. Guzman (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion, # 2 Joint Statement re Disputed and Undisputed Fees and Costs, # 3 Declaration of Donald Guzman, # 4 Declaration of Megan K. Kau, # 5 Declaration of Audrey Stanley, # 6 Exhibit 1, # 7 Exhibit 2, # 8 Exhibit 3, # 9 Declaration of Roman Amaguin, # 10 Exhibit 4, # 11 Certificate of Service)(Kau, Megan) (Entered: 02/10/2023)