2025-07-18 Merit Appeals Board Minutes

Home

Merit Appeals Board July 18, 2025 MR. THOMAS: I guess I didn’t hear or see in these pleadings or whatever you might call them, the question of whether this is a recruitment and examination issue. I have to say, I don’t quite understand that actually. It’s like if you’re—it’s not a case if—of it’s fatal if you’re in this early stage and you can’t go farther, if that’s what happened. MR. DISHER: He still has recourse. As the Hawai ʿ i Civil Rights Commission did indicate that he does have a right to pursue this in a lawsuit, if he so chooses. And he can raise those issues there, too, as well as his complaints for discrimination which has been the core and center of his complaint from the beginning. Now, if anything, I’ll also point out the—I know, Chair, you mentioned the first line of that letter—but couple lines later it does say, “This does not necessarily mean that the problems you alleged did not occur, but that the investigation could not confirm those allegations to the standard of proof level required by the statute of the Commission to further pursue the case.” So, basically, they just didn’t have enough before them. It’s not that they didn’t say it didn’t happen or not, but maybe something to be discovered in the discovery process—in a lawsuit or to help support their case, if they didn’t have a case. MR. HONG: I point out in our memorandum—pages 8 and 9—we cite Rule 3-38 of the Rules of the Department of Human Resources regarding probationary employees and probationary appointment. And 3-38(b)(1) “…employee must meet the performance requirements of the position as measured by a formal performance appraisal…” And, in this case, the formal performance appraisal was that he failed to meet the qualifications. He failed to meet the qualifications because they—Number 1, didn’t allow him to train on the firearm, according to what they promised him in terms of the number of hours. That’s what we’re contending gives jurisdiction to this Board. CHR. CABANAS: Are there questions for the attorneys? Ms. Bond, Mr. Aguinaldo? MR. HALVORSON: No (inaudible). MS. GIBO: No questions from us, Chair. MR. AGUINALDO: I do have a question— CHR. CABANAS: Okay, go ahead. MR. AGUINALDO: —for both attorneys. As you indicated, Mr. Hong, was that a requirement for your client to have the qualification for training with firearms? Page 17