Steven Cabasa v. City & County of Honolulu ( 2018 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 21 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN CABASA, No. 15-16597
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
1:14-cv-00080-DKW-RLP
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, MEMORANDUM*
Department of Environmental Services; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2018**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Steven Cabasa appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment
to the City and County of Honolulu, Department of Environmental Services (the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
City) on his claim that the City retaliated against him for protected conduct in
violation of the Hawaii Whistleblower Protection Act (HWPA), Haw. Rev. Stat.
§ 378-62. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
It is undisputed that a candidate for the Wastewater Pumping Operations
Supervisor position must receive at least a 70% score on the promotional
examination to be considered for the position and that Cabasa received a 57.5%
score on the examination. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact
that the City would not have promoted Cabasa “regardless of the protected
activity.” Crosby v. State Dep’t of Budget & Fin., 76 Haw. 332, 342 (1994)
(quoting NLRB v. Howard Elec. Co., 873 F.2d 1287, 1290 (9th Cir. 1989)).
AFFIRMED.
2