Mary Kahoopii, Renee Aiona, Sunshine Rubin, Cheryl Irebaria, Harriett Athayasai, Grant Yamauchi, Wil Kahapea, Pearla Kouchi, Cynthia Yamasaki, Mike Imanaka, Myron Koizumi


Keep Reading



Dear Sir or Madam,


I have resided here in Honolulu, Hawaii for almost 4 years now. I had intended to stay here when I made the decision to come, and was happy to have found employment relatively soon. I found a job working with a temporary agency for 4 months. I was hired by the client as a regular employee, Sept. 2002. On my first day of regular hire, I was shocked to hear, "you know why they hired him, don't you", from one of my co-workers. But, needing to work for a living and being in a strange place, I thought it best to ignore this, after all, I was hired.

At the beginning of my time with the client, Title Guaranty, I was told by the on site supervisor, that if I was to take a particular bus and call her first, "there would be more work". The day after this I handed her my time card, ready to seek another assignment, when she acted as though she didn't know why I would be doing this. When I explained, she countered with some nebulous words and said I could work as long as the company needed me.

Subsequently, the same supervisor would tell me that I had to give her a key or the combination to the lock on my locker, "in case of an emergency". I thought this to be a strange request, as I could not imagine an emergency in my locker that would require her or anyone else to open it without me. I didn't respond to her request, and not hearing anything further, I gathered that it was not company policy at all.

Having a co-worker refer to me as "boy" and another ask me 3 times - after giving an answer twice - "why do black people use the N word?", did not make me feel very gregarious among them. I was also told by a co-worker, "all Hawaii is a gang brah.", and by another, "it's all connected", the supervisor speaking about a former supervisor said, "we made him quit because he thought he was smarter than us, cause he was from the east coast".

We were housed in a basement of what is now a former Costco building, with an air-conditioner as the only ventilation. When I noticed mold growing in a hole, in the wall beneath the air-conditioner, adjacent to the room where I sometimes, but mostly my co-workers would eat lunch, I asked them about it and was told that management was made aware of it and did nothing. I decided to inform management myself, considering the untruths I had previously heard from some. I was thanked by the assistant to the woman in accounting who handled the repairs for the building.

I did not think it was a major undertaking by a very successful company to fix this problem, and was surprised at the length of time it was taking to address the situation, so I informed OSHA, Aug. 2003. This is when things started to go further south. Coincidently, the day after going to the OSHA offices, the next day at work, my supervisor stated to a co-worker, "Vernon went to OSHA." This information was not given to her or any co-worker, by me.

When I went to OSHA, the employee did not give me any type of reference number, or write one in the space provided on the complaint form, nor did she inform me at that time that mold is not OSHA'S jurisdiction, which is what I was told when I went to check on the status of the complaint. Neither, did the employee inform me of laws governing discrimination. I was also told - it not being OSHA'S jurisdiction - the complaint was referred to the Department of Health. It was like pulling teeth to get an answer as to what office at the DOH it was referred to. Needless to say I could not inquire about the possible disposition of the complaint, not knowing where to inquire.

I made a complaint to the EEOC, Jan. 2004, and the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, Apr 2004, both of which were dismissed without any investigation, each agency sat back and waited for the submission of the company's response. Incidentally, I was contacted by the director of the EEOC, asking me if I wanted to proceed, after I was shown a copy of the company's response, which I don't believe is proper. I now see in the EEOC's and the HCRC's own publications, matters such as mine that were investigated and even adjudicated. During the HCRC's lack of investigation, I only heard from them at the intake and when I received their letter of dismissal.

I furnished the EEOC and the HCRC with names of co-workers who said they would speak for me. They were not interviewed. I was informed by an investigator at the EEOC that no one visited the site. There was a similar situation here with UPS, where an employee was fired for doing less egregious acts than his co-workers, which I believe is the case here. I saw co-workers break company equipment, cuss freely, ask for sexual favors, and bring children and friends to the work site. Throughout this experience I have been told by these agencies' staff and lawyers, literally or in effect, "there is no smoking gun here". This is only due to there being no investigation. In the least, there is a pattern that should compel any thinking person to ask questions.

Subsequent to this, my work was sabotaged on more than one occasion, and reports to management only resulted in them twisting the situation in attempts to placate me and set me up for these spurious accusations by my co-workers. Each complaint of mine was a matter of my erroneous "interpretation", as stated by management, while my co-workers complaints were valid descriptions of my "misconduct". As a result of the accusations, I was suspended, without pay, pending an investigation for, I kid you not, a co-worker accusing me of harassing her by clapping my hands and signing "Pink Cadillac", and another saying, I was teasing her when I asked her to say my name and that of the manager, to see if I could distinguish the two.

I was terminated in May 2004, two weeks after the dismissal of the EEOC complaint that was not investigated, and a day after informing management that I overheard a co-worker saying to the one that accused me of harassing her by singing, "we're going to show him the power of p----. I was denied unemployment insurance, June 2004, with a fact-finding interview done over the telephone that was not reviewed or signed by me, as it should have been before it was made part of the official record and used at my future appeal. The subsequent appeal Aug. 2004 was biased, prejudiced, and contained perjured statements by the witnesses for my former employer. I am now told that the recording of the hearing does not exist because it was transcribed.






I research has some relation to another, be it professional, academic, and even familial.



DIRECTORS - Volunteer Legal Services Hawai'i
Ronald D. Kouchi

Your Ad Here

Your Theory
Powered By Ringsurf