Aileen Mariano v. Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                OCT 29 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    AILEEN MARIANO,                                  No. 13-15452
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00652-LEK-BMK
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    LIBERTY DIALYSIS-HAWAII, LLC,
    DBA Liberty Dialysis,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Hawaii
    Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted October 8, 2014**
    University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Before: TASHIMA, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    Aileen Mariano appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of
    Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii on claims of sexual harassment, negligent and intentional
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages, all arising under Hawaii
    law. Mariano has not presented evidence to demonstrate Patient E’s actions were
    severe or pervasive. See Nelson v. Univ. of Hawaii, 
    38 P.3d 95
    , 106 (Hawaii
    2001). LDH can be held liable for its employees’ sexual harassment claims only
    when it was or should have been aware of and failed to take adequate steps to end
    the harassment. Arquero v. Hilton Hawaiian Village LLC, 
    91 P.3d 505
    , 514
    (Hawaii 2004). Mariano only reported to LDH Patient E’s multiple touches of her
    shoulder and arm, which was not severe or pervasive activity. LDH cannot be held
    liable for this conduct because it responded promptly and thoroughly to Mariano’s
    complaint.
    Mariano’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress is barred by
    Hawaii’s workers’ compensation law, H.R.S. § 386-5, because it is not related to
    the alleged sexual harassment.
    Because the record indicates LDH’s conduct was not outrageous or beyond
    the bounds of decency, we affirm summary judgment on Mariano’s claim for
    intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Hac v. Univ. of Hawaii, 
    73 P.3d 46
    , 60-61 (Hawaii 2003).
    Claims for punitive damages are derivative of other claims. Ross v. Stouffer
    Hotel Co. (Hawai’i) Ltd., 
    879 P.2d 1037
    , 1049 (1994). Mariano has not presented
    2
    evidence to avoid summary judgment on any of her other claims. Therefore, her
    punitive damages claim cannot succeed.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-15452

Judges: Tashima, Rawlinson, Clifton

Filed Date: 10/29/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024