Ignacio v. Cnty. of Haw.

937 F.Supp.2d 1220

Terence IGNACIO, Plaintiff,

v.COUNTY OF HAWAII, et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 11–00516 SOM/BMK.

United States District Court, D. Hawai‘i.

March 27, 2013.

Brian J. De Lima, Francis R. Alcain, Robert John Crudele, Crudele & De Lima, Hilo, HI, for Plaintiff.

Diane A. Noda, Corporation Counsel, County of Hawaii, Laureen L. Martin, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Michael J. Udovic, Office of the Corporation Counsel–Big Island, Hilo, HI, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S THREE MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY, Chief Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION.

Plaintiff Terence Ignacio was formerly a police officer on probationary status with the Big Island of Hawaii's Police Department (the “Police Department”). Am. Compl., ECF No. 9. Ignacio is suing the Police Department and Police Chief Harry S. Kubojiri in his individual and official capacity (collectively, “Defendants”) for having wrongfully terminated him after the Department conducted an internal investigation into his conduct. Id. Ignacio alleges that, in terminating him, the Police Department failed to follow its internal complaint procedures (Counts I and II) and failed to abide by its collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers (“SHOPO”) (Counts III and IV). Ignacio further alleges that Defendants engaged in “prohibited coercion and reprisal” (Count V) and failed to treat him fairly (Count VI). In addition, Ignacio asserts that, under the Police Department's internal complaint procedures and the SHOPO CBA, he was not an “at-will” employee (Count VII), and that the Police Department breached a duty of care it owed him (Count VIII). Finally, Ignacio alleges that Defendants violated his rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments (Counts IX and X).

Currently before the court are Ignacio's motion for partial summary judgment on Counts I through IV, ECF No. 52, and Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims, ECF No. 57. These motions mirror each other, at least with respect to Counts I through IV. Ignacio also brings two motions for partial summary judgment that address defenses raised by Defendants. ECF Nos. 54, 56. This court grants summary judgment to Defendants on all claims, meaning that Ignacio's motion for summary judgment on Counts I to IV is correspondingly denied and his challenges to defenses fail.

II. BACKGROUND.

Ignacio applied to be a police officer with the Police Department in late 2008.¹ As a part of his application, Ignacio signed a “Waiver of Liability and Release Form,” authorizing the Police Department “to make a thorough investigation ... for the purpose of determining [his] suitability for employment with the [P]olice Department.” ECF No. 89–10. He also “agree[d] to hold harmless and release from liability under any and all possible causes of legal action the Department, its officers, its employees, and its agents, for any statements, acts, or omissions in the course of its investigation into [his] background, family, personal habits, and reputation.” Id.

Ignacio began working as a “Police Officer I” on November 17, 2008. See Am. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 9. From the time he began his employment, Ignacio was subject to the Police Department's Standards of Conduct, “whether on or off duty.” ECF No. 59–30. Like all new police officers, Igancio was required to complete an 18–month initial probationary period before becoming a “regular employee.” See SHOPO Supplemental Agreement, ECF No. 59–6. During this initial probationary period, Ignacio was “not entitled to any seniority or tenure rights” or to use the grievance or appeal procedure set forth in the SHOPO CBA. Id.

While on probation, Ignacio received a “not acceptable” performance rating “in the areas of officer's safety, radio communications, and report writing and grammar.” Memo re: Extension of Field Training Officer Program, ECF No. 59–8; Ignacio Dep. at 174, ECF No. 59–9. The Police Department extended Ignacio's probationary period for two months. The Police Department said that, while the extension in the Field Training Program “should not be construed as a disciplinary action,” it did “not preclude the department from taking action prior to the date of your extended [probation]; to include termination of employment from the [ ] Police Department should you not meet an acceptable level of performance.” Id.

There is no dispute that, on April 24, 2010, Ignacio called in sick for a shift that ran from 2:45 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. Dep. of Terence Ignacio (“Ignacio Dep.”) at 142, ECF No. 59–8. It is also undisputed that, after dark that evening, Ignacio called his fiancee, Kaitlyn Ogi, and ended their engagement because he thought she was cheating on him with a man named Dennis Hollowell. Id. at 51, 137, 142. Ogi was at Hollowell's house that evening. Id. at 137; see also Decl. of Dennis Hollowell (“Hollowell Decl.”) ¶¶ 3–8, ECF No. 59–41; Decl. of Jodi Ferreira (“Ferreira Decl.”) ¶¶ 4–11, ECF No. 59–39.

Hollowell and his housemate assert that, after one of their dogs began barking like “crazy” at some point between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. that evening, Ogi and Hollowell received phone calls from Ignacio. Hollowell Decl. ¶¶ 3–4; Ferreira Decl. ¶¶ 4–5. See also Ignacio's Phone Records, ECF No. 59–28 After ending a call with Ignacio, Hollowell told his roommate, “I can hear someone on the roof and I can hear the dogs barking over the phone. [Ignacio] is here.” Ferreira Decl. ¶ 6. The next day, Hollowell's roommate “noticed some dents in the roof” and thought that “[i]t looked like someone had walked on the roof.” Id. ¶ 9.

Ignacio admits only that he drove past Hollowell's home on the evening of April 24, 2010. Ignacio Dep. at 137. He claims that after he passed Hollowell's house, he saw Ogi's car, then called Ogi to say that their relationship was over. Id. at 137.

On April 26, 2010, Ogi filed eight complaints against Ignacio with the Police Department alleging harassment, theft, and multiple counts of domestic violence. See ECF Nos. 59–14, 59–15, 59–16, 59–17, 59–18, 59–19, 59–20. The next morning, the Police Department issued a Complaint Report based on Ogi's eight allegations against Ignacio. ECF No. 59–11. That same day, Ogi obtained a temporary restraining order against Ignacio from the state court, ECF No. 59–22, and the Police Department placed Ignacio on a leave of absence without pay. See ECF No. 59–23. The Police Department initiated both an Internal Affairs investigation and a criminal investigation. Decl. of Harry Kubojiri (“Kubojiri Decl.”) ¶ 14, ECF No. 59–39. Ignacio was advised of his “right to review Article 12” of the SHOPO CBA and to have “the opportunity to consult with a union representative” when responding to the administrative investigation. Kimura Letter to Ignacio, ECF No. 9–1, Page ID # 170. With respect to the criminal investigation, Ignacio was instructed not to interfere with the Police Department's work. See Letter to Ignacio from the Police Department, ECF No. 59–23.

The Internal Affairs investigation considered information from a variety of sources, including Ogi's TRO, Ignacio's phone records, the Police Department's database, and interviews of at least thirteen witnesses, including Ignacio, who was interviewed in the presence of a SHOPO representative. Decl. of Alan Kimura ¶ 9, ECF No. 59–37. The investigation revealed, among other things, that Ignacio had accessed the official Police Department database and, while on duty, had searched for Hollowell's name on three separate occasions with no legitimate work-related reason. Decl. of James B. O'Connor, ECF No. 59–42.

Internal Affairs completed its investigation and issued a 250–page report on May 10, 2010. Kubojiri Decl. ¶ 16, ECF No. 59–38. That same day, the Police Department sent Ignacio a letter terminating him at the close of the next business day for the conduct described in the Police Department's Complaint Report. That conduct related to what Ogi had alleged. ECF No. 59–32. After Ignacio was terminated, the Police Department “cleaned out his locker and discovered evidence which had not been properly secured and logged. As a result, [a second Internal Affairs] investigation was initiated.” Kubojiri Decl. ¶ 20, ECF No. 59–38.

Exactly one week after Ignacio's termination, he filed an Internal Complaint seeking reinstatement with the Police Department. ECF No. 59–29. Citing his rights under the SHOPO CBA, which governed disciplinary proceedings, Ignacio also requested access to the recording of his interview with Internal Affairs, along with “copies of all documents, recordings, and other things considered in the investigation of [his] case.” Letter to Kubojiri, ECF No. 59–33.

Exactly two weeks after Ignacio was terminated, he and Ogi entered into a “settlement agreement.” Ignacio Dep. at 173, ECF No. 59–9. As part of the settlement agreement, Ogi “agreed to withdraw the charges against [Ignacio] and dismiss the TRO.” Id. That same day, Ogi withdrew all eight complaints with the Police Department, ECF No. 59–25, and Ignacio wrote Ogi a check for $2,500. ECF No. 59–26.

On June 2, 2010, Chief Kubojiri replied to Ignacio's letter seeking all materials relating to the Internal Affairs investigation. Kubojiri Letter to Ignacio, ECF No. 59–34. Kubojiri first informed Ignacio that, while Ignacio's letter referred to the SHOPO CBA, the Police Department “terminated [Ignacio's] initial probationary appointment as a Police Officer I. Any characterization that the termination of your probationary appointment was a disciplinary matter is incorrect.” Id. Kubojiri gave Ignacio a recording of his Internal Affairs interview but declined to provide “other documents, recordings, or other things considered as a part of the administrative investigation concerning [Ignacio] pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statutes §§ 92F–13 and 92F–22.” Id.

...