Laserfiche WebLink
12 <br />73. According to the website, the location of the office is clearly listed as: <br />Hawaii Island Film Office <br />County of Hawaii <br />Department of Research and Development <br />25 Aupuni St. <br />Room 1301 <br />Hilo, HI 96720 <br />7.4. Nowhere on the application did it indicate that Kona was the required <br />geographical location. <br />75. In Plaintiffs emails to Douglass Adams, Mr. Adams never once mentioned that <br />Plaintiff's application was not being considered because he only "checked Hilo". <br />76. Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, Defendant County of Hawaii contends <br />that the position that Plaintiff applied for was located in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. <br />77. Defendant City and County of Hawaii contends that Plaintiff's application for the <br />position "expressly indicated he was only available in a position in the District of Hilo." <br />78. Defendant City and County of Hawaii contends that Plaintiff's application was <br />never referred to R&D for consideration for the Economic Development Specialist SR 24 position <br />because Plaintiff "did not indicate in his application that he was available for a position. in Hilo." <br />79. Accordingly, Defendant County of Hawaii contends that "since Claimant's <br />application was not referred to R&D, specifically because of Claimant'sgeographic limitation in <br />his application, the Department of Research and Development was not even aware that Claimant <br />applied for the position of Economic Development Specialist IIISR 24. <br />80. Defendant County of Hawaii also highlights the fact that Plaintiff appears to live in <br />Hilo and that "the distance between Hilo and Kona is approximately 150 miles, roundtrip." <br />81. Defendant further contends that they have not engaged in age discrimination <br />because six of seventeen R&D employees are older than Plaintiff. <br />-12- <br />EXHIBIT "A" Pg12 <br />Page 12 of 25 <br />