Higa, Arakaki named in EEOC complaint
Higa accused of sexual harassment, Arakaki of threatening retaliation
Below is a copy of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission case involving complainant Melissa Chang versus the County of Hawaii. Chang accuses Council member Stacy Higa of sexual harassment on the job, and claims former Councilman James Arakaki threatened retaliation against her if she filed a formal complaint.
You'll see that Chang started working for Council member James Arakaki in September 2004, then began working for Council member Stacy Higa in December 2005. Chang complains that beginning in April 2005, she was "the subject of unwanted and unwelcome remarks, requests, and attention from Council Member Higa which consisted of numerous requests for dates, invitations to take trips, statements directed at a relationship with Mr. Higa, and a physical contact with her."
Chang knew Higa was married, according to the complaint, and she allegedly suffered "serious mental and emotional stress" which caused her to take sick leave and quit the job in April 2006, before the term of her employment was up. Chang also had filed a workers compensation claim which was upheld by the director of the Department of Labor, and she was being treated by a psychiatrist.
The complaint also alleges that after Chang complained about Higa in July 2006 to her direct supervisor, then-County Clerk Constance Kiriu, Council member Arakaki threatened her with retaliation if she filed a formal complaint with governmental agencies.
Chang, represented by attorney Stanford H. Masui of Honolulu, seeks "general, special, and punitive damages, including but not limited to, prejudgement interest, attorneys fees, and costs.
Here's the document:
Hunter Bishop
An anonymous poster pointed out the spelling error in the headline which I have corrected. Thank you, Anon.
17 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (17)
Can it be had?
It is so very much over due.
On February 26, 2007, I posted:
"If anyone is really interested, they could find out about the ex-Chair's former legislative assistant who had to take stress leave after SHE moved from working for then-Member Arakaki to working for then-Chair Higa."
Is this just "consensual” , “playful advances" and a simple "misunderstanding" ?
The plaintiff -
Ms Chang is either very brave or ill advised.
Ms Chang has made claims that if can not be proven could very well land her in jail,
discredit her attorney and doctor.
This lawsuit exposes a county government
“...put out or get out..” career advancement and management style – made possible by “transfers” which hinge on a
“important peoples’“ recommendations..
Ms Chang claims she was forced to leave her job,
injured and frightened.
I am disappointed that in good conscience and with the dignity of all woman in the workplace in mind that
Mayor Kim is mute. Nine months. Sacrosanct.
Will Ms Chang take a settlement?
It must be a concern.
Mounting legal and medical bills.
Out of town doctors and attorneys.
Travel expenses.
Five months of negotiations .
Subpoenas.
Pre trial discovery.
Transcripts.
Photocopies.
Faxes.
Rooms .
Meals.
Per diems.
Big Bucks.
Will our county tax dollar force Ms Chang to fold ?
Will our A-team crush the young Ms Chang?
Is that wise Mayor Kim?
I say take the lid off.
Its going to spill over eventually.
BTW:
...cheap shot about Bill Clinton and "the other women".
James Weatherford yesterday.
I have come to learn from your posts that you are above average-very knowledgeable about the many county government issues being discussed.
I wrote:(referring to the assault on Ms Chang)
"Mayor Kim is mute."
You replied:
""Mayor Kim has nothing -- zero -- to do with this Council matter."
My first reaction was to disagree.
I thought the Mayor could remove/bar anyone from the building who was acting up. That would make sense-to protect the other workers.
My thinking is that the Mayor determined that there was not merit to the claim of assault even though everyone in the building was aware of what happened.
Considering Mayor Kim has made it his life's work to voice concern- warnings of possible likelihoods- then any other person in the history of the world- it just seemed like would have spoke to this.
Aloha
If the accused were a member of Kim's administration, then maybe he could ban them from the building (but probably not without providing for some due process). But a member of the Legislative Branch BANNED from the premises (without any due process) by the leader of the Executive Branch? I highly doubt that would ever fly.
I don't write this comment to minimize the allegations or to dispute the complaint, but rather as a general critique of your line of thought. That would seem to be how tin pot dictatorships operate.
As a matter of fact, there is very little the Mayor can do about what happens in the Council. The main power the Mayor has in that regard is to veto legislation, and, with enough votes, the Council can over ride a veto.
At the time of the alleged violations, Mr. Higa was Council Chair, and that position in fact has a good bit of power, in terms of budget, staff, Council Agenda, etc.
Here is a work place were a past employee hangs around in restricted areas, he is a former big boss he gets some latitude. He is taking care of some loose ends including someone unpopular.
"Know your place and be respectful of your superiors.Or you will live to regret it."
When a inch of water slows motorists on remote roadways in far flung districts on this island our Mayor Kim is informed and takes charge. A helicopter, flares, radio, and in the office by 7am.
This is not the only concern the citizens pay him to deal with.
"...a work place were a past employee hangs around in restricted areas, he is a former big boss he gets some latitude. He is taking care of some loose ends including someone unpopular."
Please explain. Your post is cryptic beyond my simply mind's capability of understanding.
"past employee"?
"restricted areas"?
What are you talking about?
http://www.hawaii-county.com/council/charter2000/Final%20Hawaii%20County%20Charter%202006.pdf
Its reads like a sweet deal for county officials- an employment contract with pay raises at will.
The section that gives Mayor Kim authority.
Section 14-4. Conduct of Employees.
Summarized"
Don't take stuff home that belongs to the county.
The boss can't date or bully under his classification.
Everyone has to be nice and fair
One good link deserves another.
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/what's+good+for+the+goose+is+good+for+the+gander.html
Article 4 lays out the duties of the Mayor.
The Mayor has zero authority over the conduct of any council member.
If you reckon there is such a "sweet deal for county officials- an employment contract with pay raises at will" then you should run for office and give it a try.
BTW: sorry for the typo's in the previous post, i.e., "simply mind's", but I was in a hurry.