Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 266 Draft 01 2024-2026COUNTY OF HAWAII Darr of H�k o 1tE OF•H'.� RESOLUTION NO. STATE OF HAWAII 266 25 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INDEMNIFICATION OF A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE COUNTY WHO IS NAMED AS AN INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT IN THE LAWSUIT KNOWN AS DAVID J FREEDMAN V. COUNTY OF HAWAI `I, ET AL. AGAINST ALL DAMAGES ASSESSED THEREIN AND MAKING OTHER FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2-188 OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE. WHEREAS, on June 7, 2023, Plaintiff DAVID J. FREEDMAN (hereinafter "Plaintiff') commenced a civil action against the COUNTY OF HAWAI`I (hereinafter "the County") known as David J. Freeman v. County of Havvai `i, Civil No. 3CCV-23-0000218 (hereinafter "the Lawsuit"); and WHEREAS, on or around October 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint in the Lawsuit, attached hereto as Exhibit A (hereinafter "the Complaint"), naming former Director of the County's Department of Research and Development DOUGLASS S. ADAMS in his individual capacity as a Defendant in the Lawsuit ("Adams"), and alleging claims against the County and Adams for employment discrimination, emotional distress and negligent supervision; and WHEREAS, Section 2-188(a) of the Hawaii County Code (hereinafter "the Code") requires the adoption of a resolution by the Council in order to effectuate the joint defense of the County and Adams in the Lawsuit, including but not limited to the payment of all claims, whether by settlement or judgment; and WHEREAS, representation of Adams by the Corporation Counsel and her authorized representatives is not an admission of liability; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAI`I that, in accordance with Section 2-188(a) of the Code, this body finds that: I. Any acts or failures to act by Adams, as alleged in the Complaint, was done within the course and scope of Adams' employment as an employee of the County; 2. Any acts or failures to act by Adams, as alleged in the Complaint, were done in good faith, without actual malice, to serve the County, and in the apparent best interests of the County; 3. Payment of the claims or judgment of the Lawsuit would be in the best interests of the County; and 4. It is in the public interest to indemnify Adams for all damages that may be assessed in the Lawsuit, including punitive damages, so that the Corporation Counsel and her authorized representatives may represent the Adams. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, pursuant to the findings hereinabove made, the County is authorized to indemnify, defend, and represent Adams against all damages assessed in the Lawsuit, including but not limited to the payment of all claims, whether by settlement or judgment. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the County Clerk shall transmit copies of this resolution to Renee N. C. Schoen, Corporation Counsel, and Diane T. Nakagawa, Director of Finance. Dated at Hilo , Hawai`i, this 3rd day of September , 2025 INTRODUCED B dick COUNCIL ME 'BER, COUN Y OF HAWAI`I COUNTY COUNCIL ROLL CALL VOTE County of Hawai`i AYES NOES ABS EX Hilo, Hawai`i GALIMBA X HUSTACE X I hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION was by INABA X the vote indicated to the right hereof adopted by the COUNCIL of the KAGIWADA X County of Hawaii on September 3, 2025 KANEALII-KLEINFELDER X KIERKIEWICZ X ATTEST: KIMBALL X ONISHI X VILLEGAS X 7 0 2 0 Reference: C-428/FC-78 Y C CHAIRPERSON& PRESIDING OFFICER RESOLUTION NO. 266 25 [ 1111181111 � �� 2 LRB 25-028 ADM 1, BOSKO PETRICEVIC Attorney at Law, LLLC P.O. Box 38 Honolulu, Hawaii 96810 Telephone: E-mail: Attorney for Plaintiff DAVID J. FREEDMAN 8443 (402) 301-3716 boskolawggmail.com IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT DAVID J. FREEDMAN, Plaintiff, VS. STATE OF HAWAII COUNTY OF HAWAII; DOUGLASS S. ADAMS; DOE PERSONS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; ROE "NON- PROFIT" CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATIONS 1-10; and ROE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants. Electronically Filed THIRD CIRCUIT 3CCV-23-0000218 07-OCT-2024 07:18 PM Dkt. 110 CAMD CIVIL NO.3CCV-23-0000218 (Other Civil Action; Civil Rights Violations) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY; FIRST AMENDED SUMMONS; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiff DAVID J. FREEDMAN ("Plaintiff' or "Freedman") by and through his undersigned counsel, BOSKO PETRICEVIC, ATTORNEY AT LAW LLLC, and brings this First Amended Complaint against the above -named Defendants, and complains and alleges as follows: I. PARTIES I . Plaintiff DAVID J. FREEDMAN (hereinafter "FREEDMAN"), at all relevant times mentioned in this Complaint, is a resident of the City and County of Hawaii, State of I do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the official court record of the Courts of the State of Hawai i. ��v tiraQ� Dated at: Hilo, Hawaii 08.00T-2024, Is/ Cheryl Salmo, Clerk of the ThirdjulicSal Circuit, State of Hawaii m s t EXHIBIT "A" a or „r Pagel of 25 2 Hawaii. Plaintiff was born in 1961. 2. Defendant COUNTY OF HAWAII, STATE OF HAWAII (hereinafter "HAWAII I COUNTY"), at all relevant times mentioned in this Complaint, is a municipal corporation, with primary offices located in Hilo, Hawaii, organized under the laws of the State of Hawaii, and was at all times relevant herein, liable for the acts and/or omissions of the Hawaii County Department of Research and Development ("R&D"), the Department of Human Resources ("HR"), and its administrators and employees. 3. Defendant DOUGLASS S. ADAMS ("Adams"), at all relevant times mentioned in this Complaint, was a resident of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Adams was at relevant times a director for the Hawaii County Department of Research and Development ("R&D"). Under his watch, he essentially solely controlled hiring for the Film Commissioner position withing the R&D. 4. Adams is being sued in his individual capacity for aiding and abetting discrimination of Plaintiff under the Lales v. Wholesale Motors Co., 328 P.3d 341, 356 (Haw. 2014) doctrine that stated following: "In contrast, at the same time the legislature made it unlawful for employers to harass or retaliate against any individual, the legislature explicitly stated that it was unlawful for "any person whether an employer, employee or not, to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing of any of the practices forbidden by the Act, or to attempt to do so." 1963 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 180, § 1 at 224 (emphasis added) (predecessor to HRS § 378- 2(3)). In other words, the legislature plainly understood how to proscribe the conduct of individual employees, and when it intended to do so, it did so explicitly and unequivocally. (Emphasis added). 5. Defendants DOE. PERSONS 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS I-10, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, ROE "NON-PROFIT" CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATIONS 1-10 and ROE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES -2- EXHIBIT "A" Pg2 Page 2 of 25 3 1-10, are sued herein under fictitious names for the reason that, after thoroughly investigating the facts of the action, said Defendants' true names and identities are presently unknown to Plaintiff, except upon information and belief, that they are connected in some manner with the named Defendants and/or were the agents, servants, employees, employers, representatives, co -venturers, associates, vendors, suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, subcontractors or contractors and/or owners, lessees, assignees, licensees, of the named Defendants and/or were in some manner presently unknown to the Plaintiff engaged in the activities alleged herein and/or were in some manner responsible for the injuries or damages to Plaintiff which was a proximate cause of injuries or damages to Plaintiff and that their "true names, identities, capacity, activities and/or responsibilities" are presently unknown to Plaintiff or his attorney. To ascertain the full names and identities of Defendants DOE PERSONS 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, ROE "NON- PROFIT" CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATIONS 1-10 and ROE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Plaintiff's counsel has investigated the facts alleged herein through inter alia, interview of the Plaintiff and records and files submitted by Plaintiff. When the true names and capacities are ascertained, through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff will move to amend his Complaint to state the true names. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff reiterates and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth fully herein. 2. All of the events done by all of the above -named Defendants described and material to this Complaint occurred within the Island of Hawaii, County of Hawaii, and within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawaii. -3- EXHIBIT "A" Page 3 of 25 Pg3 4 3. This Complaint is brought pursuant to Sections 603-21.5(3), 634-35, and 663-1 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (hereinafter referred to as "HRS"). 4. Venue is proper in this Court under Section 603-36 of the HRS, as the alleged events arose from actions between Plaintiff and Defendants, and events and/or omissions giving rise to this action arose in this judicial circuit. 5. Personal jurisdiction is proper in this Court because all of the above -named Defendants have minimum contacts with the State of Hawaii because all of the Defendants are employed by the State of Hawaii, and as such have direct contact with the State of Hawaii. 6. All of the Defendants and Plaintiff are residents of Hawaii. 7. On June 12, 2024, Hawaii Civil Rights Commission has issued a "Notice of Dismissal and Right to Sue in David J. Freedman vs. County of Hawaii, FEPA No. 22893; EEOC No. 486-2024-00383" ,for Plaintiff's sex discrimination allegations 1, giving the Plaintiff a right to file a private lawsuit against the above listed Defendants in the State Circuit Court within ninety (90) days after receipt of the above referenced June 12, 2024 Notice of Right to Sue pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Section. 368-12 and H.A.R. §12-46-20. M. FACTS 8. Plaintiff reiterates and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth fully herein. 9. Plaintiff graduated from the University of Southern California in 2010 with a master's degree in film and TV Production. 1 When Complaint was originally filed — Dkt. 1, Plaintiff was also issued prior to that Right to Sue Letter for his Age Discrimination claim -4- EXHIBIT "A" Pg4 Page 4 of 25 5 10. Since then, Plaintiff held various production related positions in the entertainment industry. 11. Plaintiff is highly qualified and the most qualified person to hold a position of Film Commissioner in Hawaii County out of all the applicants. 12. In January of 2018, Plaintiff relocated to Hawaii and purchased a home in Hilo, Hawaii where he presently resides. 13. Once settled in Hilo, Plaintiff created a production company and listed his company on the FILM HAWAII website and began filming commercials for local and national companies, including Hawaii Papaya Association and Princess Cruise Lines. 14. Plaintiff then became acquainted with Justin Finestone ("Mr. Finestone"), who was at the time, the film commissioner for the Big Island. 15. Mr. Finestone is also a graduate of the University of Southern California, School of Cinematic Arts — like Plaintiff. 16. Plaintiff soon became intimately familiar with all of the requirements for filming, not only on the Big Island but also on. the other Hawaiian Islands and soon possessed and in-depth knowledge of Mr. Finestone's role as film commissioner. 17. Plaintiff is also a member of The Producer's Guild and serves on the Executive Producer's Council as well as a member of the TV Academy, where he also serves on the Producer's Council. 18. Plaintiff is presently employed as the Producer and Vice President of the Critic's Choice Awards, televised on the CW Network. -5- EXHIBIT "A" Pg5 Page 5 of 25 41 6 19. In 2020, when the COVID pandemic hit, all production stopped and Mr. Finestone informed Plaintiff of his intention to retire, given the number of years that he had already spent in the position as the Big Island film commissioner. 20. Mr. Finestone suggested that Plaintiff apply for the position and recommended Plaintiff personally, given that Plaintiff would be an ideal candidate for such a position. 21. In June of 2021, Mr. Finestone formally retired and at that time Plaintiff spoke to Mayor Mitchell Roth ("Mayor Roth") who also suggested that Mr. Freedman apply for the film commissioner's position. 22. At that time, Mr. Roth referred Plaintiff to the hiring manager, Mr. Douglass Adams ("Mr. Adams" or "Adams"). 23. On or about July 27, 2021, Plaintiff reached out via email to Mr. Douglass. Plaintiff introduced himself, provided his industry background and experience, and expressed his interest in the film commissioner position. 24. Adams knew that Plaintiff was an older gay male. Plaintiff is obviously gay and older just by his appearance. 25. Mr. Adams responded to Plaintiff's email and instructed Plaintiff to check the Hawaii County, employment website and to keep an eye out for the job posting. 26. Accordingly, Plaintiff checked the Hawaii County jobs website frequently and did not see the posting. 27. On September 13, 2021, Plaintiff again emailed Mr. Adams and informed him that he did not see the job posting. 28. On September 14, 2021, Mr. Adams responded and told Plaintiff that the job was not posted yet and that Mr. Adams would notify Plaintiff once the job was posted. -6- EXHIBIT "A" Pg6 Page 6 of 25 29. On January 10, 2022, Plaintiff again emailed Mr. Adams, stating that it had been six months and the job was still not posted. 30. Mr. Adams replied to Plaintiff, stating that the job would be posted. 31. However, Adams never had any intent of ever hiring an older gay male. 32. Upon information and belief, Adams, succumbing to his sexual attraction to young females he supervises, decided to use the position of a Big Island Film Commissioner, over which he essentially had a complete control over hiring, as a recruitment tool to satisfy his sexual attraction and decided to only hire young attractive unqualified women of color so he can "supervise' them and look at them daily. 33. Adams, upon learning about Plaintiff and his interest in the Film Commissioner, even though Adams himself admitted that Plaintiff's experience and qualifications were impressive, decided to pathologically lie to everyone around him and make every effort to stop Plaintiff from NOT only being hired, but from even being interviewed for the position. 34. Since he could not admit to his desire to ONLY hire young unqualified women of color to ogle them under his supervision publicly for the film commissioner position, and since he could not be honest about the true nature of his planned recruiting strategy, Adams decided to pathologically lie to everyone around him including Hawaii County Council members. 35. On October 19, 2021, already knowing of Plaintiff's interest and his impressive qualifications, Adams went to the Hawaii Council and provided pathologically false testimony designed to hide his sexual motivations relating to the Film Commissioner Position. 36. During the October 19, 2021 testimony to Hawaii County Council, Adams pathologically lied to Council claiming they were actively recruiting for the Film Commissioner position. -7- EXHIBIT "A" Pg7 Page 7 of 25 8 37. This was a pathological lie since there was not even a job posting at this time. 38. This was also a lie since even though Adams already knew of Plaintiff and his interest and his impressive qualifications, he was keeping Plaintiff and his interest hidden making sure Adams can keep handpicking young attractive females for the position without any real official process. 39. What Adams DID NOT tell anyone that he was already proceeding and executing his recruitment strategy build on his sexual attraction towards young women he supervises or will supervise. 40. By this time, Adams has already placed 2 young attractive unqualified females women of'color - that he admitted to under oath to being attracted to — into temporary position of the Film Commissioner without any official and open recruitment process. 41. Adams was also targeting another - third - young attractive unqualified woman of color to hire as a Film Commissioner so he can ogle her and she was the one he ultimately hired — Ms. Freitas. 42. Amazingly enough, Adams continued lying to the Hawaii County Council when providing official testimony. 43. On January 18, 2022, Mr. Adams went before the Hawaii County Council and the Council expressed frustration that six months had passed without a new film commissioner being appointed. 44. During this time, Mr. Adams pathologically lied to the County Council claiming to them that he had posted the job and was not getting any qualified candidates. This was a complete fabrication since Adams only wanted to hire young unqualified females. -8- EXHIBIT "A" Pg8 Page 8 of 25 45. Adams pathologically lied about not knowing about Plaintiff and his impressive resume for the film commissioner. 46. At this time when Adams pathologically lied to the County Council, he was already aware of Plaintiff and his interest in the position and his impressive qualifications. 47. Moreover, Adams' lies to the Hawaii Council were so pathological that the actual truth of the matter was that the iob opening had not even been posted as of the date of his testimony before the Council. 48. It was not until March 7, 2022, that the job was posted on the Hawaii County Job website. 49. Mr. Adam's testimony that there were no qualified candidates was a complete lie, designed to hide his sexual motivation and desires to only "hire" — more like handpick - young attractive unqualified women of color, given the fact that he knew that Plaintiff would be applying. 50. What Adams DID NOT tell anyone that he was already proceeding and executing his recruitment strategy build on his sexual attraction towards young women he supervises. 51. By this time, Adams has already placed 2 young attractive unqualified females women of color - that he admitted to under oath to being attracted to — into temporary position of the Film Commissioner. 52. Adams was also targeting another - third - young attractive unqualified woman of color to hire as a Film Commissioner so he can ogle her and she was the one he ultimately hired — Ms. Freitas. 53. It was clear to Adams that Plaintiff was much more qualified, but being blinded by his sexual motivation, HE DID NOT CARE and has used very important County of Hawaii Film Commissioner position as a recruitment tool to satisfy his sexual motivations. -9- EXHIBIT "A" Pg9 Page 9 of 25 10 54. Plaintiff, an openly and obvious older gay male had no chance despite his impressive qualifications. 55. On March 7, 2022, Mr. Adams informed Plaintiff via blind copy email that the position had "opened" and was now publicly posted but Adams never had any intention on even interviewing the Plaintiff because Plaintiff was an older gay male, and NOT a young attractive female. 56. Upon reviewing the post, Plaintiff noted that the application window was for a very small window of only nine days. 57. Plaintiff checked the county website and confirmed that the physical office location for the film commissioner was located in Hilo, Hawaii. 58. Accordingly, Plaintiff applied for the position of Economic Development Specialist III SR-24 and listed Hilo as Plaintiff's location. 59. On April 11, 2022, Plaintiff received a confirmation email from Defendant that Plaintiff received a rating of 70 and was eligible for hire to the position. 60. Other than an automated confirmation that Plaintiff's application had been submitted, Plaintiff did not receive any further communication or feedback from the County of Hawaii with respect to his application. 61. Upon information and belief, Adams purpose decided to ignore Plaintiff's application and not even consider him for a position because Adams wanted to hire young attractive females ONLY. 62. Defendant County of Hawaii admits that in May 2022, Mr. Douglas Adams, Director of the Department of Research and Development received an inquiry from Claimant regarding his application. -10- EXHIBIT "A" Pg10 Page 10 of 25 11 63. On June 2, 2022, Plaintiff learned that the new film commissioner had been selected via an announcement that ran in the Hawaii Herald Tribune. 64. The new film commissioner to be selected was Aulani Freitas ("Freitas"), someone "decades younger than Plaintiff with far less entertainment industry experience and connections than Plaintiff'— both of which are key to the success of bringing productions to the Big Island. 65. Based on his experience and resume, Plaintiff was exceptionally qualified for the position due to his skill set and possession of many years of work -related experience. 66. Upon information and belief, this position is within the County of Hawai'i's Department of Research and Development ("R&D"). 67. Upon information and belief, the Department of Human Resources ("HR"), oversees and administers the recruitment program for the County of Hawai' i, assisting departments in the filing of civil service positions. 68. Plaintiff is decades older than Freitas and a gay male, with many more years of professional experience related to the requirements of the position. 3 69. Plaintiff was informed on multiple occasions and led to believe that the open position was located in Hilo, Hawaii and that he was an impressive candidate. 70. When Plaintiff spoke to Mayor Mitch Roth about the position, who even recommended that Plaintiff apply for the position, Plaintiff asked where the film commissioner's office was located and was informed that the location of the office was in Hilo. 71. Plaintiff also informally chatted with Mr. Adams, the hiring manager, who also confirmed that the office was located in Hilo. 72. Plaintiff also did his own research before starting his application by visiting the Big Island Film Office Website: https•//www.hawaiiislandfilm.com/contact/. -11- EXHIBIT "A" Page 11 of 25 Pgl 1 12 73. According to the website, the location of the office is clearly listed as: Hawaii Island Film Office County of Hawaii Department of Research and Development 25 Aupuni St. Room 1301 Hilo, HI 96720 7.4. Nowhere on the application did it indicate that Kona was the required geographical location. 75. In Plaintiffs emails to Douglass Adams, Mr. Adams never once mentioned that Plaintiff's application was not being considered because he only "checked Hilo". 76. Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, Defendant County of Hawaii contends that the position that Plaintiff applied for was located in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. 77. Defendant City and County of Hawaii contends that Plaintiff's application for the position "expressly indicated he was only available in a position in the District of Hilo." 78. Defendant City and County of Hawaii contends that Plaintiff's application was never referred to R&D for consideration for the Economic Development Specialist SR 24 position because Plaintiff "did not indicate in his application that he was available for a position. in Hilo." 79. Accordingly, Defendant County of Hawaii contends that "since Claimant's application was not referred to R&D, specifically because of Claimant'sgeographic limitation in his application, the Department of Research and Development was not even aware that Claimant applied for the position of Economic Development Specialist IIISR 24. 80. Defendant County of Hawaii also highlights the fact that Plaintiff appears to live in Hilo and that "the distance between Hilo and Kona is approximately 150 miles, roundtrip." 81. Defendant further contends that they have not engaged in age discrimination because six of seventeen R&D employees are older than Plaintiff. -12- EXHIBIT "A" Pg12 Page 12 of 25 13 82. Defendant contends that "despite Mr. Freedman's beliefs, Claimant's application was not referred to R&D for consideration because the position of Economic Development Specialist III SR 24 was for an immediate full-time vacancy in Kailua-Kona" and that "within the application's agency -wide questions, Claimant expressly indicated that he was available for a position only in the Hilo District." 83. Notably, Freitas lives in Kamuela, Hawaii where there are no county offices. During his deposition, Adams admitted that Freitas did not even work in Kona when she was hired as a film commissioner but rather at different locations. 84. Kona location was a lie and an excuse by Adams to hide the fact he was only hiring young attractive females of color for the film commissioner position. 85. Despite his impressive qualifications and his application, Plaintiff was NOT even interviewed. 86. Upon information and belief, Mr. Adams, targeted another young attractive female of color in Freitas to hire her into a permanent film commissioner position and he did hire her. 87. Adams admitted under oath during his deposition that Freitas was sexually attractive. 88. In fact, by the time Freitas was hired and since retirement of previous permanent film commissioner in June 2021, Adams has already personally promoted 2 other young attractive unqualified females of color into a temporary position of the film commissioner position even though he knew all along of Plaintiff and his interest and his impressive qualifications. 89. Adams also admitted under oath that the other 2 young females he promoted into film commissioner position were also attractive. -13- EXHIBIT "A" Pg13 Page 13 of 25 14 C 90. Not only that, Adams admitted under oath that at least one of these females he personally handpicked, performed duties of a film commissioner from Hilo, Hawaii. 91. NOT ONLY THAT, Adams admitted under oath that film commissioner was not only performed out of Kona and that even Freitas, the permanent hire, was allowed to perform her duties as a film commissioner from other locations. 92. Kona location excuse was a lie by Adams designed to hide his sexually motivated reasons for hiring young females as a film commissioner so he can ogle them. 93. Given the pathological lies made by Mr. Adams to Hawaii County Council and Plaintiff, he acted deceitfully and with a sexual motivated bias that led to his predetermination to hire Freitas and ensured that due to this hiring bias, she would receive the position. 94. The nine -day time frame in which the position was held open for "public application" is absurdly narrow. 95. The pathological misinformation and fraudulent information that was conveyed by Mr. Adams to the County Council also displays evidence of disparate treatment on the part of Mr. Adams, as hiring manager. 96. The lies and misinformation with respect to the location of the position is. yet another display of evidence of disparate treatment on the part of Mr. Adams, as hiring manager. 97. The ten months of delay in posting the job opening and nine days of keeping the position open provides further evidence of both disparate treatment and motive by Mr. Adams against Plaintiff and in favor of Freitas. 98. Not only that, during these 10 months where Adams would not, even post a Film Commissioner job for open recruitment, he kept placing young attractive unqualified females into the position so he can ogle them. -14- EXHIBIT "A" Page 14 of 25 Pg14 15 99. As a result, Plaintiff was discriminated against due to his age, gender and sex in violation of HRS § 378 2. Plaintiff is 61 years old, obviously gay male. 100. All of the named above Defendants' actions have caused Plaintiff significant general and special damages. Plaintiff was victim of Defendants' conspiracy to discriminate, as described above and deny him prestigious employment he was most qualified for. Due to the all of the above -named Defendants' actions, Plaintiff has suffered also severe emotional distress, mental trauma and mental illness and many other special and general damages as proven at trial. 101. All of the named above Defendants' above -described actions have caused Plaintiff a severe mental illness that is manifesting, itself in Plaintiff's daily severe stress levels, anxiety, insomnia, increased heart rate and depression. 102. Plaintiff was damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. IV. - CAUSES OF ACTIONS COUNT 1 • VIOLATION OF THE HAWAII REVISED STATUTES ("HRS") §378-2 (HAWAII'S AGE, GENDER AND SEX DISCRIMINATION STATUTE) (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 103. Plaintiff reiterates and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth fully herein. 104. Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies. 105. HRS § 378-2(1)(A) (Supp.1999) provides in relevant part: It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: (1) Because of race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religion, color, ancestry, disability, marital status, or arrest and court record: (A) For any employer to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or discharge from employment, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual in compensation or in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment[.] (Emphases added.) -15- EXHIBIT "A" Pg15 Page 15 of 25 1� 106. Based upon this language, Hawaii's Employment Discrimination Law prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual because of his or her age, sex and gender. 107. Plaintiff is presently 61 years old, older gay male. 108. Based on his experience and resume, Plaintiff was exceptionally qualified for the position due to his skill set and possession of many years of work -related experience and much more qualified than 3 young females that Adams handpicked. 109. Upon information and belief, this position is within the County of Hawai'i's Department of Research and Development ("R&D"). 110. Upon information and belief, the Department of Human Resources ("HR"), oversees and administers the recruitment program for the County of Hawai' i, assisting departments in the filing of civil service positions. 111. Plaintiff is decades older than Freitas and 2 other females previously hired into the film commissioner position by Adams after the previous permanent Film Commissioner retired, with many more years of professional experience related to the requirements of the position. 112. Hawaii County violated the HRS 378-2 by engaging indiscrimination based on sex, gender and sex as explained above by repeatedly hiring and placing 3 young attractive females absurdly less qualified than Plaintiff into the film commissioner position since the last permanent film commissioner retired. 113. Adams is being sued in his individual capacity for aiding and abetting discrimination of Plaintiff under the Lales v. Wholesale Motors Co., 328 P..3d 341, 356 (Haw. 2014) doctrine that stated following: "In contrast, at the same time the legislature made it unlawful for employers to harass or retaliate against any individual, the legislature explicitly stated that it was unlawful for "any person whether an employer, employee or not, to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing of any of the practices forbidden by the Act, or to attempt to do so." -16- EXHIBIT "A" Pg 16 Page 16 of 25 17 1963 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 180, § 1 at 224 (emphasis added) (predecessor to HRS § 378- 2(3)). In other words, the legislature plainly understood how to proscribe the conduct of individual employees, and when it intended to do so, it did so explicitly and unequivocally. (Emphasis added). 114. As explained above, Adams, motivated by sexual attraction repeatedly hired and placed 3 young attractive females absurdly less qualified than Plaintiff into the film commissioner position since the last permanent film commissioner retired. 115. As a result, Adams aided and abetted discrimination against Plaintiff. 116. As a result, Plaintiff was discriminated against due to his age, sex and gender in violation of HRS § 378-2 by all above named Defendants. 117. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has sustained substantial damages, including, but not limited to economic loss and emotional distress and is therefore entitled to recover special, general, and compensatory damages in such amounts as shall be shown at a trial or hearing hereof. 118. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. 119. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from Defendants, together with prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs. COUNT 2: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 120. Plaintiff reiterates and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth fully herein. 121. Defendants' wrongful conduct was intentional. 122. Defendants' wrongful conduct was unreasonable and/or outrageous, committed -17- EXHIBIT "A" Pg17 Page 17 of 25 IM] without just cause or excuse and beyond all bounds of decency. r 123. Defendants knew or should have known that their wrongful conduct was likely to cause injury. actions. 124. Plaintiff has suffered emotionally and financially as a direct result of Defendants' 125. Plaintiff has endured shame and embarrassment among his fellow colleagues due to the way that Defendants have treated him. 126. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has , sustained substantial damages, including, but not limited to economic loss and emotional distress, and is therefore entitled to recover special, general, and compensatory damages in such amounts as shall be shown at a trial .or hearing hereof. 127. Each Defendant is liable for the conduct described above. 128. Plaintiff is entitled to general, special, punitive and treble damages as a result of Defendants' conduct. COUNT 3: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 129. Plaintiff reiterates and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth fully herein. actions. 130. Plaintiff has suffered emotionally and financially as a direct result of Defendants' 131. Defendants' wrongful conduct caused physical injury and/or mental condition constituting negligent infliction of emotional distress. 132. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has -18- EXHIBIT "A" Pg18 Page 18 of 25 19 sustained substantial damages, including, but not limited to economic loss and emotional distress, and is therefore entitled to recover special, general, and compensatory damages in such amounts as shall be shown at a trial or hearing hereof. COUNT 4: NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (AGAINST DEFENDANT HAWAII COUNTY) 133. Plaintiff reiterates and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 134. Asset forth above, Defendant Hawaii County and/or their employees, agents and/or representatives had a duty of care to Plaintiff in making sure that Adams was properly supervised and managed in exercising and using his power and authority when performing his County job and duties and engaging in hiring for County jobs. 135. As set forth above, Defendant Hawaii County and/or their employees, agents and/or representatives knew, should have known and/or were aware that Adams was abusing, misusing and was negligent in performance of his official duties by engaging in discriminatory hiring practices as described above and Defendant Hawaii County did nothing to correct or prevent this behavior by Adams. 136. Defendant Hawaii County and/or their employees, agents and/or representatives breached their duties of care to Plaintiff. 137. As a direct, proximate and legal cause of the negligence, gross negligence or recklessness of Defendant Hawaii County and/or their employees, agents and/or representatives, Plaintiff sustained the special and general damages described herein in the amount to be proven and shown at trial. 138. All of the named above Defendants' above -described actions have caused Plaintiff -19- EXHIBIT "A" Pg19 Page 19 of 25 NEI a severe mental illness that is manifesting itself in Plaintiff's daily severe stress levels, anxiety, insomnia, increased heart rate and depression. 139. Plaintiff was damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court enter judgment granting the following relief on. all causes of action as follows: A. On all Counts against ALL Defendants; B. For an award of special, economic, consequential and general damages to Plaintiff from ALL Defendants, jointly and severally, in amount proven at trial; C. Punitive damages, as the facts aforesaid constitute extreme and outrageous behavior which exceeds all bounds usually tolerated by decent society. In committing the above acts and omissions, Defendants acted wantonly and/or oppressively and/or with such malice as implies a spirit of mischief or criminal indifference to civil obligations and/or there has been some willful misconduct that demonstrates that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, justifying an award of punitive or exemplary damages in an amount to be proven at trial; D. That this Court enter a declaratory judgment that Defendants have violated the rights of Plaintiff; E. That this Court award Plaintiff compensatory damages, proximately caused by Defendants' tortious and abusive conduct, including, but not limited to, general damages for intentional and negligent infliction of mental and/or emotional distress, assessed against all Defendants, all in an amount to be proven at trial; -20- EXHIBIT "A Pg20 Page 20 of 25 21 F. That this Court award Plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit herein as well as prejudgment and post judgment interest; G. That this Court order appropriate injunctive relief. H. That this Court award Plaintiff such other and further relief both legal and equitable as this Court deems just, necessary and proper under the circumstances. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; October 7, 2024 /S/ BOSKO PETRICEVIC BOSKO PETRICEVIC, ATTORNEY AT LAW LLLC ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF DAVID J. FREEDMAN 21- EXHIBIT "A" Pg21 Page 21 of 25 22 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT DAVID J. FREEDMAN, Plaintiff, VS. STATE OF HAWAII COUNTY OF HAWAII; DOUGLASS S. ADAMS; DOE PERSONS 140; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 14 0; ROE "NON- PROFIT" CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATIONS 140; and ROE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants. CIVIL NO.3CCV-23-0000218 (Other Civil Action; Civil Rights Violations) DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY Come now Plaintiff, by and through his undersigned counsel, BOSKO PETRICEVIC, ATTORNEY AT LAW LLLC, and pursuant to Rule 38 (b) of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure ("HRCP"), and hereby demands a jury to try any and all claims triable by a jury against all Defendants. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; October 7, 2024 /S/ BOSKO PETRICELIC BOSKO PETRICEVIC, ATTORNEY AT LAW LLLC ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF DAVID J. FREEDMAN -22- EXHIBIT "A" Pg22 Page 22 of 25 23 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT DAVID J. FREEDMAN, Plaintiff, VS. STATE OF HAWAII COUNTY OF HAWAII; DOUGLASS S. ADAMS; DOE PERSONS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; ROE "NON- PROFIT" CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATIONS 1-10; and ROE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, STATE OF HAWAII: Defendants. CIVIL NO. 3CCV-23-0000218 (Other Civil Action; Civil Rights Violations) FIRST AMENDED SUMMONS; FIRST AMENDED SUMMONS To the above -named Defendant DOUGLASS S. ADAMS: You are hereby summoned and required to file with the Court and serve BOSKO PETRICEVIC, ATTORNEY AT LAW LLLC, whose address is P.O. Box 38, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96810, with an email address of boskolawggmail.com, an answer to the First Amended Complaint herewith served upon you, within twenty (20) days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the First Amended Complaint. -I- EXHIBIT "A" Pg23 Page 23 of 26 24 This summons shall not be personally delivered between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on premises not open to the general public, unless a judge of the above -entitled court permits, in writing on this summons, personal delivery during those hours. A failure to obey this summons may result in an entry of default and default judgment against the disobeying person or party. DATED: Hilo, Hawaii, CLERK OF THE ABOVE -ENTITLED COURT -2- EXHIBIT "A" Pg24 Page 24 of 25 25 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII DAVIDJ. FREEDMAN, ) CIVIL NO. 3CCV-23-0000218 (Other Civil Action; Civil Rights Violations) Plaintiff, ) VS. ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE COUNTY OF HAWAII; DOUGLASS S. ) ADAMS; DOE PERSONS 1-10; DOE ) CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ) PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; ROE "NON- ) PROFIT" CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ) UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATIONS ) 1-10; and ROE GOVERNMENTAL ) ENTITIES 1-10, ) Defendants. ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above -listed document was duly served upon the following counsel and parties by way of JEFS on Oct. 7, 2024: ELIZABETH A. STRANCE 4715 Corporation Counsel E. BRITT BAILEY 9814 Deputy Corporation Counsel Office of the Corporation Counsel, County of Hawaii Hilo Lagoon Centre 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 961-8251 E-mail: ElizabethB.Baileynhawaiicounty.gov Attorneys for Defendant COUNTY OF HAWAI` I DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; October 7, 2024 I SI BOSKO PETRICEVIC BOSKO PETRICEVIC, ATTORNEY AT LAW LLLC ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF DAVID J. FREEDMAN -3- EXHIBIT "A" Pg25 Page 25 of 25