SHOWA LAW OFFICE, LLLC
ANDREW DAISUKE STEWART 7810-0
735 Bishop Street, Suite 318
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Tel. (808) 772-9297
Fax. 1 (866) 772-9407
Attorney for Plaintiff
CAROL YOUNG

Electronically Filed
FIRST CIRCUIT
1CCV-19-0002160
20-NOV-2019
10:09 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
CAROL YOUNG

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF )
EDUCATION; CHRISTINA
)
KISHIMOTO, in her Capacity as the )
Superintendent of the HAWAII
)
STATE DEPARTMENT OF
)
EDUCATION; CHRISTINA SHIOI,
)
Individually; TAMMY KELLER,
)
Individually; SEAN TAJIMA,
)
Individually; DOE DEFENDANTS 1 - )
20; DOE GOVERNMENTAL
)
ENTITIES 1-20,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Civil No. 1CCV-19-000216
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;
SUMMONS; DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Comes now Plaintiff, CAROL YOUNG, by and through her attorney,
SHOWA LAW OFFICE, LLLC, and hereby files this First Amended
Complaint, and alleges and avers the following causes of action against
Defendants HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; CHRISTINA
KISHIMOTO, in her Capacity as Superintendent of the HAWAII STATE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; CHRISTINA SHIOI; TAMMY KELLER; SEAN

 TAJIMA; DOE DEFENDANTS 1 -20; and DOE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES
1-20 (hereinafter collectively “Defendants”).
THE PARTIES
1.

Plaintiff CAROL YOUNG (“Plaintiff”) is and was at all times

relevant a resident of the City and County of Honolulu and employed by the
State of Hawaii Department of Education as a project director/resource
teacher.
2.

Defendant State of Hawaii Department of Education (“HIDOE”)

is and was at all times relevant a governmental entity belonging to the State
of Hawaii.
3.

Defendant Christina Kishimoto (“Defendant Kishimoto”) is and

was at all times relevant a resident of the City and County of Honolulu and
the Superintendent of HIDOE.
4.

Defendant Christina Shioi (“Defendant Shioi”) is and was at all

times relevant a resident of the City and County of Honolulu and employed
as a Grant Administrator and Academic Officer by HIDOE.
5.

Defendant Tammy Keller (‘Defendant Keller”) is and was at all

times relevant a resident of the City and County of Honolulu and employed
as a Complex Area Business Manager by HIDOE.
6.

Defendant Sean Tajima (“Defendant Tajima”) is and was at all

times relevant a resident of the City and County of Honolulu and employed
as a Complex Area Superintendent by HIDOE.
7.

DOE DEFENDANTS 1 – 20 and DOE GOVERNMENTAL

ENTITIES 1 - 20 (collectively referred to herein as “DOE DEFENDANTS” or
“other presently unidentified Defendants) are sued herein under fictitious
2

 names for the reason that their true names and identities are presently
unknown to Plaintiff except that they are connected in some manner with
Defendants or were the agents, principals, partners, officers, directors,
members, servants, employees, employers, representatives, co-venturers,
associates, consultants, vendors, suppliers, manufacturers, subcontractors,
contractors,

sureties,

insurers,

owners,

lessees,

sublessees,

lessors,

guarantors, assignees, assignors, licensees or licensors of Defendants or
were in some manner presently unknown to Plaintiff, engaged in the
activities alleged herein, or were in some manner responsible for the injuries
and damages to Plaintiff, or conducted some activity or activities in a
negligent or wrongful manner which was a proximate cause of the injuries
and damages to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff prays for leave to certify the true
names,

identities,

capacities,

activities,

and

responsibilities

of

DOE

DEFENDANTS when the same are ascertained.
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
8.
to

Hawaii

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant
Revised

Statutes

§

634-35

as

Defendants

were

either

governmental entities belonging to the State of Hawaii, located within the
City and County of Honolulu, or residents of the City and County of
Honolulu.
9.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Hawaii

Revised Statutes § 603-21.5(a)(3) and venue is proper pursuant to Hawaii
Revised Statutes § 603-36(5).
10.

This Court has further subject matter jurisdiction over HIDOE

and Defendant Kishimoto, in her capacity as Superintendent for HIDOE, as
3

 they satisfy the definition of “employer” under Hawaii Revised Statute § 37861.
11.

This Court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the

individual Defendants named herein, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statute, §
HRS §378-61, which defines an “employer” to include “an agent of an
employer or of the State or a political subdivision of the State”, as well as,
under common law tort principles.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
12.

During all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was employed as a

District Resource Teacher and Project Director in the Leeward District’s
Campbell-Kapolei Complex Area of the State of Hawaii Department of
Education.
13.

In June 2017, Plaintiff discovered HIDOE had been unlawfully

paying a certain HIDOE employee’s salary with federal funds after said
employee had physically transferred from Makakilo Elementary School to
Iroquois Point Elementary School notwithstanding the fact that Iroquois
Point Elementary School was not entitled to receive 21st CCLC federal funds.
14.

Part of the funds, constituting the extra salary, paid by HIDOE

to said employee, came from federal funds received by HIDOE as part of a
federal grant, making these payments a possible violation of federal laws
and regulations.
15.

Shortly after discovering that unlawful payments were being

made by HIDOE to said employee, Plaintiff reported the unlawful activity to
Heidi Armstrong, as well as to Defendants Shioi and Keller.

4

 16.

On November 15, 2017, Plaintiff sent an e-mail to Heid

Armstrong to follow up on HIDOE’s unlawful use of federal funds.
17.

After reporting the on-going unlawful activity by HIDOE to Heidi

Armstrong on November 15, 2017, HIDOE employees, including but not
limited to, Defendants Shioi, Keller, and Tajima began subjecting Plaintiff to
retaliation regarding her terms, conditions, location, and privileges of her
employment.
18.

On August 30, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to

Defendant Kishimoto, with a copy to the State of Hawaii, Department of the
Attorney General, informing her that Plaintiff was being subjected to
unlawful retaliation, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statute, Section 378-62
and requesting that Plaintiff be kept at Makakilo Elementary instead of
being returned to Ilima Intermediate School, where she would continue to
experience being subjected to a retaliatory and hostile work environment.
19.

On or about December 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed an official

complaint regarding the misuse of federal funds with the Office of the
Inspector General of United States Department of Education.
20.

As of the filing of the present lawsuit, neither Defendant

Kishimoto, HIDOE, nor the State of Hawaii Attorney General’s office
responded in any meaningful way to the August 30, 2018 letter nor took
steps to protect Plaintiff from the retaliatory and/or retaliatory treatment
she was subjected to by Defendants Shioi, Keller, and Tajima.
21.

Defendants have subjected Plaintiff to retaliatory action in

response to Plaintiff reporting the DOE’s illegal use of federal grant funds,
including but not limited to, the following
5

 (a)

Plaintiff was required to attend meetings with Defendants Shioi, Keller,

and Tajima, which other similarly situated employees were not required to
attend;
(b)

Plaintiff was required to provide 30-days advance notice for purchase

orders requests she was in charge of, while purchase order request for other
similarly situated employees were processed in less than 30 days;
(c)

Certain purchase order requests, which Plaintiff was in charge, were

subjected to inordinate delays;
(d)

Plaintiff was denied certain job duties, such as handling “day-to-day”

fiscal matters, which required her to address all such matters to Defendant
Keller and her staff;
(e)

When Plaintiff contacted Defendant Keller and her staff about how to

handle certain fiscal matters, Plaintiff’s emails would either go unanswered
or answered after significant delay, which impeded Plaintiff’s ability to do
her work effectively and in a timely manner;
(f)

Defendant Tajima ordered an internal audit for grant program

purchases Plaintiff was in charge of, while no internal audit was ordered for
other purchases made by the two grant schools;
(g)

Defendant Shioi placed Plaintiff on a different evaluation plan (i.e.,

“Principal Directed Professional Development Plan” (“PDPDP”)) despite
Plaintiff receiving a “Highly Effective” rating for the previous school year;
(h)

The requirements placed on Plaintiff, per the new PDPDP plan, were

unrealistic and was targeted solely at Plaintiff and not at other similarly
situated employees;

6

 (i)

Defendant Tajima was specially appointed as Plaintiff’s immediate

supervisor and Plaintiff was required to attend a thirty-minute meeting with
Defendant Tajima every time Plaintiff attended professional development
seminars, which other similarly situated employees were not required to do;
(j)

Emails and voice mails sent by Plaintiff (and/or vendors she was in

charge of) to Defendants Shioi and Keller frequently went unanswered,
which impeded Plaintiff’s ability to perform her job and cast her in negative
light vis-à-vis vendors and other contractors Plaintiff was required to work
with;
(k)

Defendant Keller intentionally did not enter hours into the casual

personnel system on multiple occasions, which resulted in certain
employees not getting paid on time, which reflected poorly on Plaintiff;
(l)

Defendant Keller began micro-managing project(s) Plaintiff was

overseeing and required additional procedures to be followed in order for the
project to receive necessary supplies, making it difficult for Plaintiff to
perform her job duties as Project Director;
(m)

Defendant Keller scheduled meetings with site coordinators, principals,

and other education officers via e-email without including Plaintiff on such
emails;
(n)

Defendant Shioi made decisions regarding purchase orders for

project(s) Plaintiff was in charge of without consulting Plaintiff;
(o)

While Plaintiff was asked to resolve certain fiscal issues, Plaintiff was

denied access to the Casual Personnel System and/or to the Budget in the
HIDOE’s Financial Management System;

7

 (p)

Defendant

Shioi

relocated

Plaintiff

and

her

part-time

teacher/assistant from Makakilo Elementary School to Ilima Intermediate
School for no justifiable reason; and
(q)

Plaintiff was denied reimbursement in the amount of approximately

$900 for supplies she paid with her own funds for a school event for which a
purchase order had already been issued;
The retaliatory and retaliatory treatment Plaintiff was subjected to by
Defendants continued until she was transferred to August Ahrens
Elementary School in September of 2019.
COUNT I – VIOLATION OF HRS SECTION 378-62
22.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges and by reference incorporates the

allegations contained in the above paragraphs.
23.

After reporting the above-described unlawful activity HIDOE

was engaged in, HIDOE employees, including but not limited to, Defendants
Shioi, Keller, and Tajima, began subjecting Plaintiff to retaliation regarding
her terms, conditions, location, and privileges of her employment in violation
of Hawaii’s Whistle Blower Protection Act.
24.

Defendants Shioi, Keller, and Tajima engaged in, aided, abetted,

incited, and/or compelled unlawful retaliation against Plaintiff and/or
attempted to engage in, aided, abetted, incited and/or compelled unlawful
retaliation against Plaintiff.
25.

As a result of the unlawful retaliation Plaintiff was subjected to

by Defendants, Plaintiff has incurred damages in amounts to be proven at
trial.

8

 COUNT II – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
26.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges and by reference incorporates the

allegations contained in the above paragraphs.
27.

By retaliating against Plaintiff for reporting the above-described

unlawful activity by HIDOE, Defendants abused their authority and violated
Hawaii’s Whistle Blower Protection Act.
28.

Through their extreme and outrageous conduct, Defendants,

Shioi, Keller, and Tajima intentionally and recklessly caused severe
emotional distress to Plaintiff, resulting in physical symptoms to Plaintiff.
29.

As a result of Defendants Shioi, Keller, and Tajima’s extreme

and outrageous conduct, Plaintiff has incurred damages in amounts to be
proven at trial.
COUNT III - PUNITIVE DAMAGES
30.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges and by reference incorporates the

allegations contained in the above paragraphs.
31.

By engaging in the above-described actions, Defendants acted

wantonly or oppressively, or with such malice, as implies a spirit of mischief
or criminal indifference to civil obligations or with that entire want of care
which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to
consequences.
32.

As a result of Defendants’ aforementioned conduct, Plaintiff is

entitled to punitive damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered in its favor
against all Defendants as follows:
9

 A.

For judgment in its favor on each and every count as

alleged against the Defendants claimed herein, and presently unidentified
Defendants, jointly and severally, in the type of relief or amount of damage
set forth therein of for such amount as may be proven at trial.
B.

For special damages against Defendants and presently

unidentified Defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally, in an
amount to be proven at trial.
C.

Plaintiff be awarded further special, general, and/or

consequential damages.
D.

Punitive damages as may be proven at trial.

E.

Plaintiff be awarded all costs of suit, including reasonable

attorney’s fees and costs, interest, all costs of investigation, and such other
and further relief as the Court deems equitable in the premises.
DATED:

Honolulu, Hawaii, November 20, 2019.
/s/ Andrew Daisuke Stewart
_________________________________
ANDREW DAISUKE STEWART
SHOWA LAW OFFICE, LLLC
Attorney for Plaintiff
CAROL YOUNG

10