FUJIWARA AND ROSENBAUM, LLLC

JOSEPH T. ROSENBAUM 9205 Electronically Filed

ELIZABETH JUBIN FUJIWARA 3558 FIRST CIRCUIT
MARCOS R. BENDAÑA 11054 1CCV-21-0001035
1100 Alakea Street, FL 20, Suite B 19-AUG-2021
Honolulu, Hawai`i 96813 08:31 AM
Telephone: (808) 203-5436 Dkt. 1 CMP

Attorneys for Plaintiff

MAILE REGO

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAI`I

MAILE REGO
) CIVIL NO.
Plaintiff, ) (Other Civil Action)
)
vs. ) COMPLAINT
)
COUNTY OF HONOLULU POLICE )
DEPARTMENT; JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE )
DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; )
DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE )
UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATIONS )
1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10; and DOE )
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-10, )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
)
)
)

COMPLAINT

COME NOW Plaintiff MAILE REGO (hereinafter referred to as “DET. REGO”) by and

through her attorneys Joseph T. Rosenbaum, Elizabeth Jubin Fujiwara, and Marcos R. Bendaña

allege and claim against Defendants above-named as follows:

 NATURE OF ACTION

1. This is a lawsuit in which Plaintiff suffered sex discrimination/retaliation

as well as whistleblower retaliation violations as it relates to DET. REGO’s employment at the

County of Honolulu Police Department, State of Hawai`i (hereinafter referred to as “HPD”).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction and venue since all events done by the above-

named DEFENDANTS, in violation of, inter alia, Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (“H.R.S.”) Chapter

378, occurred and within the jurisdiction and venue of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State

of Hawaiʻi, acts pursuant to H.R.S. §603-21.5 and the matter in controversy exceeds FIFTY

THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000) exclusive of costs and interest. Venue is prop er within the

Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaiʻi as Defendant HPD’s principal place of

business is within the venue of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaiʻi.

PARTIES

3. DET. REGO, at all times relevant herein, was and is a resident of the State

of Hawaiʻi and employed by Defendant HPD.

4. At all times relevant herein, Defendant HPD is an employer within the

meaning of H.R.S. Chapter 378.

5. At all times relevant herein, Defendant HPD’s principal place of business

is in the State of Hawaiʻi.

6. At all times relevant herein, Defendant HPD’s employees, agents and/or

representatives, were acting within the course and scope of their duties as employees, agents

and/or representatives of HPD; therefore, Defendant HPD is liable for the intentional and/or

tortious and/or wrongful conduct of said employees, agents and/or representatives pursuant to the

2
doctrine of Respondeat Superior and/or principles of Agency.

7. Defendants JOHN DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10, DOE

CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, DOE UNINCORPORATED

ORGANIZATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10; and DOE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-

10, are sued herein under fictitious names because their true names, identities and capacities are

unknown to the Plaintiff, except that they are connected in some manner with Defendants, and

are/were agents, servants, employees, employers, representatives, co -venturers, associates, or

independent contractors of Defendants herein, and were acting with the permission and consent

and within the course and scope of said agency and employment and/or were in some manner

presently unknown to the Plaintiff engaged in the activities alleged herein and/or were in some

way responsible for the injuries or damages to Plaintiff, which activities were a proximate cause

of said injuries or damages to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has made good faith and diligent efforts to

identify said Defendants, including interviewing individuals with knowledge of the claims

herein. At such time as their true names and identities become known, Plaintiffs will amend

Complaint accordingly.

8. All events done by HPD described herein occurred within the County of

Honolulu, State of Hawai`i, and within the jurisdiction and venue of the Circuit Court of the First

Circuit, State of Hawai`i.

FACTS

9. In September 2006, DET. REGO began working for the HPD first as a

recruit then as a sworn Police Officer.

10. In April 2014, DET. REGO was promoted to Detective and assigned to the

Child and Family Violence Detail in the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) for the HPD.

3
 11. In April 2014, DET. REGO was first a Domestic Violence detective.

Shortly thereafter she was instrumental in forming a “Child Abuse” branch of the “Child and

Family Domestic Violence Detail”.

12. During the relevant time periods herein, DET. REGO’s immediate

supervisor was HPD Lieutenant MARK MATSUSAKA.

13. In February 2020, DET. REGO attended a three (3) day advanced training

event hosted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI Child Abduction Rapid

Deployment (CARD) protocols are the nation's standard in missing children investigations.

14. In March 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, DET. REGO

worked remotely from home quarantining with her daughter.

15. DET. REGO is the sole legal and physical guardian of her daughter.

16. The father of DET. REGO’s daughter has visitation rights only.

17. In March 2020, the father of DET. REGO’s daughter filed a custodial

interference complaint against DET. REGO.

18. On or about April 29, 2020, the custodial interference complaint against

DET. REGO was dismissed by the State of Hawai`i Attorney General’s Office.

19. In May 2020, the FBI began to recruit DET. REGO for a Task Force

Officer (TFO) position in the Violent Crimes Against Children (VCAC) Task Force.

20. DET. REGO was specifically requested for the VCAC Task Force

position because of her exceptional work ethic, extensive training, and experience.

21. As a TFO in the VCAC Task Force, a HPD detective would be deputized

with authorities specific to the assigned Task Force.

4
 22. Around June 2020, the FBI formally requested HPD’s approval for DET.

REGO’s deputization and participation in the VCAC Task Force.

23. Chief of Police SUSAN BALLARD approved the request.

24. Within days of CH. BALLARD’s approval, the HPD’s Professional

Standards Office (PSO) served DET. REGO with administrative investigation paperwork for the

aforementioned custodial interference case against DET. REGO that was previously declined by

the State of Hawai`i Attorney General’s office.

25. DET. REGO questioned PSO about the obvious simultaneous timing of

her career opportunity.

26. The PSO admitted to DET. REGO that they forgot to process the

administrative paperwork for the dismissal of the custodial interference complaint until the

request for DET. REGO’s TFO position arrived.

27. DET. REGO’s TFO request was delayed for almost one year due to the

PSO’s negligence and the discriminatory treatment against her based on her sex as noted below.

28. The State of Hawai`i Attorney General’s office - Internet Crimes Against

Children (ICAC) division, spearheaded a multi-agency operation.

29. Upon invitation, DET. REGO represented HPD CID along with other law

enforcement partners: Child Welfare Services, FBI, Homeland Security, Missing Child Center

Hawaii, U. S. Marshals Service, U. S. Secret Service, and other confidential support services.

30. After approximately a year and a half of planning with the involved

partners, Operation Shine The Light (OSTL) took place in October 2020.

31. OSTL’s objective was to recover State of Hawai`i outstanding foster

children as well as endangered/high-risked juveniles involved in human trafficking.

5
 32. OSTL was highly successful and was recognized by the U.S. Attorney

General MERRICK GARLAND. The Missing Child Center Hawaii was the recipient of the 38th

annual U. S. Department of Justice “Child Protection Award”.

33. As part of HPD’s Child Abuse Detail, DET. REGO was critical to the

success of OSTL.

34. On or about November 16, 2020, the HPD received a letter of

commendation from State of Hawai`i Attorney General, CLARE CONNORS, with glowing

remarks about DET. REGO’s critical role in OSTL.

35. On or about December 30, 2020, DET. REGO received the letter of

commendation.

36. On or about November 25, 2020, DET. REGO received a letter that stated

CH. BALLARD and the Administrative Review Board did not substantiate the custodial

interference allegations against DET. REGO.

37. The investigation was closed with an “exonerated” disposition.

38. Sometime after November 25, 2020, another TFO request for DET. REGO

from the FBI was received by the HPD.

39. DET. REGO’s second and third TFO request from the FBI disappeared

when it reached CID.

40. Captain RANDALL PLATT was the acting major of CID during an

overlap in change of command due to retirements.

41. Beginning in December 2020, CPT. PLATT began to unnecessarily

scrutinize DET. REGO’s work.

42. CPT. PLATT questioned DET. REGO’s case queue.

6
 43. No other detective in DET. REGO’s section had their case queue

scrutinized by CPT. PLATT.

44. CPT. PLATT also badmouthed DET. REGO and accused her of being a

“rogue” detective to LT. MATSUSAKA and FBI Special Agent in Charge of VCAC.

45. Moreover, CPT. PLATT continuously ignored LT. MATSUSAKA, FBI

Special Agent in Charge of VCAC and DET REGO’s inquiries into the status of her TFO

request.

46. On or about December 9, 2020, HPD Lieutenant DEENA THOEMMES

accused DET. REGO of administratively closing an infant homicide.

47. LT. THOEMMES misrepresented the facts and failed to disclose that

DET. REGO had actually administratively closed a misdemeanor Endangering the Welfare of a

Minor in the second degree (EWM2).

48. The EWM2 was used to document that HPD placed the children into

police protective custody in accordance with HRS §587A-8 Protective Custody by Police

Officers without Court Order.

49. Approximately five (5) weeks after DET. REGO had the EWM2 case, the

infant was found unresponsive while in foster care.

50. The infant’s death was classified as unattended death, not homicide.

51. Despite these facts, LT. THOEMMES pursued disciplinary action against

DET. REGO to CPT. PLATT.

52. To DET. REGO’s knowledge, this began the alliance between LT.

THOEMMES and CAPT. PLATT.

7
 53. On or about December 9, 2020, DET. REGO sent CPT. PLATT an email

stating that she did not mishandle the infant death case and provided a summary that included

facts about how she followed normal procedures.

54. DET. REGO was never contacted thereafter regarding LT. THOEMMES’

accusations, and nothing came from this threat.

55. CPT. PLATT began to increasingly look at DET. REGO in a degrading

manner and at times outright ignored DET. REGO when she greeted him.

56. When DET. REGO tried to speak with CPT. PLATT about how she was

being treated at work, he told her that he was too busy and would call her later.

57. But CPT. PLATT would never call her.

58. CPT. PLATT continued to discriminate against DET. REGO because of

her sex.

59. LT. MATSUSAKA can attest to the discriminatory treatment against

DET. REGO by CPT. PLATT.

60. Lieutenant CARLENE LAU can attest to CPT. PLATT’s propensity to

single out females.

61. On or about December 18, 2020, DET. REGO responded to a multiple

felony crime scene with a career criminal in custody.

62. DET. REGO was the lead investigator.

63. CPT. PLATT ordered an assisting Detective, STUART LEONG, to take

the cases away from DET. REGO.

64. DET. LEONG was alarmed because CPT. PLATT stated that anybody

other than DET. REGO could have the cases.

8
 65. CPT. PLATT badmouthed DET. REGO claiming she was incompetent

and not capable of interviewing adult victims.

66. Approximately mid to late December 2020, DET. REGO went directly to

HPD Deputy Chief JOHN MCCARTHY.

67. When DPCH MCCARTHY held the rank of Lieutenant he was assigned

to CID Financial Crimes.

68. DET. REGO felt that she could approach him about her concerns.

69. DET. REGO described her concerns of unfair treatment by CPT. PLATT.

70. Without making any promises, DPCH MCCARTHY stated that he would

look into DET. REGO’s TFO request and determine if there was any justification for it being

held up.

71. Shortly after DET. REGO met with DPCH MCCARTHY, her TFO

request was approved and signed.

72. Upon deputization, DET. REGO was informed that she would be the first

female detective from HPD in a TFO position that worked partially out of the Honolulu Field

Office in Kapolei. Thereby integrating a true liaison role between the FBI and the HPD.

73. Although DET. REGO’s TFO request received a “signature” approval,

subsequent procedural requirements were needed.

74. The status was pending due to the finalization of paperwork and HPD

“sign offs”.

75. On or about January 14, 2021, CPT. PLATT, LT. MATSUSAKA, and

DET. REGO met with two representatives from an outside agency.

76. The meeting was for conflict resolution.

9
 77. Although Hawai`i was still in a Pandemic status, CPT. PLATT insisted on

meeting in-person, in an effort to resolve many issues. The main problems were as follows,

a. Miscommunication

b. Define the roles of each other’s organizations

c. Prioritize training and certifications

d. Establish a point of contact

78. During the meeting, every time DET. REGO spoke, CPT. PLATT spoke

over her in a rude manner.

79. Although he apologized each time, he continued to aggressively speak

over her throughout the meeting.

80. DET. REGO was unable to contribute to the meeting due to CPT.

PLATT’s behavior.

81. On or about January 24, 2021, Major STEPHEN GERONA became the

commander of CID.

82. Prior to CID, MAJ. GERONA was the Commander of District three (D3).

83. While MAJ. GERONA was assigned to D3 multiple officers filed

complaints against him.

84. MAJ. GERONA has been charged with discrimination, retaliation and

sexual harassment, U.S. EEOC No. 468-2020-00405.

85. MAJ. GERONA was subsequently removed from D3.

86. The HPD’s negligent and reckless decision to assign MAJ. GERONA to

CID was made without consideration of past events or rational thought.

10
 87. The HPD failed to place weight on MAJ. GERONA’s documented history

that involves lack of ethical judgement.

88. MAJ. GERONA was previously terminated for his “above the law”

conduct while on duty.

89. MAJ. GERONA historically makes decisions that satisfy his immediate

needs that result in documented retaliatory conduct.

90. MAJ. GERONA’s propensity for police misconduct is a civil and criminal

liability that has already cost taxpayers more than $550,000.

91. MAJ. GERONA is the commander of an integral division that holds the

responsibility of protecting Civil Rights, even though he has been charged with violating the

Civil Rights of his subordinates.

92. Those charges are pending.

93. The Criminal Investigative Division is responsible for protecting the

community from the most violent and serious offenders.

94. CID Detectives confer cases with The Department of the Prosecuting

Attorney (DPA) in order to deliver justice for all residents of the City and County of Honolulu.

95. The island of Oahu relies on this vital relationship with the DPA to protect

the innocent and vulnerable while preserving the Constitutional Rights of Oahu’s citizens.

96. Since MAJ. GERONA assumed command of CID, the morale of the

division plummeted.

97. June 27, 2021, was the most recent department-wide transfer opportunity

and personnel movement for the HPD at large.

11
 98. An unprecedented twenty-two (22) CID Lieutenants and Detectives

requested transfer out of CID.

99. Many of the most experienced and knowledgeable CID detectives retired

before they had planned to.

100. The HPD administration should have known that MAJ. GERONA’s

individual acts and patterns of malicious conduct would result in additional incidents of

discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, sexual harassment and poor morale.

101. The HPD took an unreasonable risk by assigning MAJ. GERONA to CID.

102. Additionally, two (2) CID Captains, Acting CPT. THOEMMES and CPT.

PLATT, have been charged with Civil Rights violations of discrimination and retaliation. This

occurred while under the direct supervision of MAJ. GERONA.

103. CPT. PLATT and LT. THOEMMES’ malicious conduct towards DET.

REGO amplified and escalated when MAJ. GERONA took over command of CID.

104. DET. REGO’s career opportunity became reliant on MAJ. GERONA,

CPT. PLATT and Acting CPT. THOEMMES.

105. MAJ. GERONA and CPT. PLATT specifically ignored FBI’s requests for

DET. REGO to be a TFO, instead they advocated for other male detectives for the TFO position.

106. On multiple occasions, the FBI informed MAJ. GERONA and CPT.

PLATT that DET. REGO’s gender and skill set were significant factors in her selection.

107. DET. REGO demonstrated her ability to build rapport with victims of

prolonged trauma during previous parallel investigations with the FBI.

108. The combination of DET. REGO’s gender, specialized training and

experience made her a standout candidate for working with victimized females.

12
 109. The FBI requested a list of alternate candidates.

110. There were several female detectives that CID Command could have

offered for consideration as a candidate for the Task Force position.

111. CID Command failed to provide any other female detectives for

consideration.

112. FBI Special Agent in Charge of VCAC followed up several more times

with the HPD about the status of DET. REGO’s TFO request.

113. In a meeting with FBI Special Agent in Charge of VCAC, MAJ GERONA

and Acting CPT. THOEMMES aggressively insisted that a male detective, KAIIMI MEAD, be

deputized instead of DET. REGO.

114. DET. MEAD was offered by the CID Command even though he was a

new detective who was promoted on or about September 20, 2020.

115. DET. MEAD is a male detective with not nearly the experience and

credentials that DET. REGO has with crimes against minors investigations.

116. HPD’s continued denial of DET. REGO’s request for the TFO position in

the VCAC Task Force was discriminatory.

117. MAJ. GERONA, CPT. PLATT and Acting CPT. THOEMMES were

clearly discriminating against DET. REGO because of her sex.

118. CPT. PLATT did not make a good faith effort to resolve disagreement as

he did on January 14, 2021, with an outside agency.

119. The CID Command bypassed conflict resolution and failed to practice

downward communication. Downward communication is a common and effective management

practice in law enforcement.

13
 120. Downward communication provides management with an opportunity to

spell out objectives, prevent misunderstandings or miscommunication.

121. DET. REGO would have willingly discussed CID Command’s concerns

with them directly, if she had been given that opportunity.

122. DET. REGO is frequently approached by other CID lieutenants to address

concerns and misunderstandings directly. The concerns and misunderstandings were always

resolved successfully and without intervention.

123. At no time did any members of CID Command staff address DET. REGO

with her supervisor present regarding any matters of their concern.

124. The supervision “chain of command” of CID Commanders is derelict,

nonexistent, and is supported by personal ties of friendships.

125. On August 1, 2021, MAJ. GERONA was awarded the position of “Acting

Assistant Chief of the Investigative Bureau”.

126. There is a vacancy due to Assistant Chief SEAN NAITO’s retirement.

127. Whereas other Majors have an assigned rotational shift for one (1) month

or a couple days. MAJ. GERONA is scheduled to have the position twice for a period of one (1)

month each.

128. MAJ. GERONA is scheduled to be the “Acting Assistant Chief of the

Investigative Bureau” August 2021 and October 2021.

WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION

129. On February 10, 2021, a missing toddler was reported to police.

130. The initial patrol officer followed the mandatory CID Missing Person

notification procedure.

14
 131. CID notifications are critical and indicate a higher threat level.

132. On February 10, 2021, at approximately 3:45pm, Missing Persons Detail

Detective MICHAEL GARCIA was notified and given an appraisal of the facts and

circumstances. Thereafter he was given additional information telephonically.

133. The missing toddler case would eventually become highly publicized in

Hawai`i and be known as the “Baby Kytana Case.”

134. At the onset of the investigation the suspect was identified as Baby

Kytana’s father.

135. Based on her training, DET. REGO was aware that Baby Kytana was

supposed to be entered into the State and Federal databases for missing children.

136. According to Federal laws, the National Child Search Act of 1990

(NCSA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 5779 and 5780) HPD was required to enter Baby Kytana into the

National Crime Information Center (NCIC) computer network within 2 (two) hours of the receipt

of the missing child notification.

137. NCSA and Federal laws also require within two (2) hours all necessary

and available information shall be made available to the “Missing Children Information

Clearinghouse” within the State.

138. The State of Hawai`i “Missing Children Information Clearinghouse” is

The Missing Child Center Hawaii also known by the acronym MCCH.

139. The law enforcement agency that entered the report into the NCIC shall

institute or assist with appropriate search and investigative procedures.

140. The official two (2) hour “clock” started on February 10, 2021 at

approximately 3:45pm, when the CID detective was notified.

15
 141. HPD CID Policy Number 200.09 states a “Critically Missing or at Risk

Person” is any child under the age of ten (10).

142. HPD Policy Number 4.50 titled “Missing Persons and Juvenile

Abductions” mandates all aforementioned requirements.

143. In CID, it is common knowledge that DET. REGO received FBI CARD

training and worked in crimes against children with the FBI.

144. LT. THOEMMES is the supervisor for the Missing Person Detail.

145. HPD Missing Person Detail did not immediately respond.

146. On February 10, 2021, Baby Kytana was reported missing by two (2)

different 911 callers from two (2) different patrol districts.

147. On February 10, 2021, approximately seven (7) family members, friends

and probation officers reported to HPD patrol officers that Baby Kytana was missing and

believed to be deceased.

148. On February 10, 2021, during the initial investigation patrol officers at the

scene gathered vital information from citizens.

149. Suspects RODRIGUES and CARTER were identified by local news

media outlets.

150. On February 10, 2021, CARTER was not investigated in an expeditious

manner by CID Missing Persons detectives.

151. Failing to investigate CARTER on February 10, 2021, would prove to be a

major oversight.

16
 152. On February 10, 2021, in accordance with HPD Policy Number 4.29

“Crime Scene: Investigative Responsibilities and Procedures”, the initial patrol officer ordered

an All Points Bulletin (APB) that was broadcasted in all patrol districts by all HPD dispatchers.

153. Despite the island-wide APB broadcast, CID Missing Persons detectives

failed to recognize the urgency. They did not respond to the crime scene to institute or assist with

appropriate search and investigative procedures. [42 U.S.C. §5780]

154. The patrol officers were instructed by DET. GARCIA to perform CID

investigative procedures on his behalf because he did not respond to the crime scene.

155. On or about February 11, 2021, DET. REGO was contacted by her law

enforcement partners because a missing toddler was going viral on social media.

156. On or about February 11, 2021, DET. REGO contacted LT.

MATSUSAKA and inquired if he was aware of any “missing toddler” case that involved

suspicious circumstances surrounding the child’s father.

157. HPD CID Policy Number 300.30 states that custodial cases fall under the

responsibility of the HPD Child Abuse Detail wherein LT. MATSUSAKA supervised.

158. LT. MATSUSAKA related that he was not informed of any facts or

circumstances regarding a parental kidnapping of a missing toddler/Baby Kytana.

159. LT. MATSUSAKA should have been formally notified by LT.

THOEMMES on February 10, 2021, when Baby Kytana was first brought to Missing Person

Detail’s attention.

160. LT. MATSUSAKA did not receive any written reports involving the

missing toddler reportedly taken by the noncustodial parent/father.

17
 161. HPD utterly failed to comply with the aforementioned HPD policies, HPD

procedures, CID policies, State of Hawai`i laws and Federal laws.

162. On or about February 12, 2021, DET. REGO conducted standard case

history inquiries on her department issued computer and discovered that Baby Kytana had

actually been reported missing on February 10, 2021.

163. The police reports were unrestricted.

164. In effect, CID Missing Persons Detail’s response was delayed by

approximately two (2) days after the missing person report was initiated.

165. On February 12, 2021, in the late afternoon DET. REGO notified LT.

MATSUSAKA, the FBI and MCCH that CID’s response to the toddler’s disappearance was

delayed for approximately two (2) days.

166. The postponed investigative response and the delayed notification to other

law enforcement partners severely hindered law enforcement's effectiveness and efforts.

167. A missing and abducted child report is extremely time sensitive.

168. It is widely understood in the law enforcement profession and by DET.

REGO who received FBI CARD training that a missing child is likely to be murdered within the

first two (2) hours of abduction.

169. NCSA, 42 U.S.C. § 5779, §5780 and HPD Policy number 4.50 “Missing

Persons and Juvenile Abduction” states, immediately inform all on-duty law enforcement

officers and any other law enforcement agency having jurisdiction. Including MCCH and the

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

170. All required criteria for the Maile Amber Alert were met.

18
 171. No public alerts were issued by the HPD even after the MCCH and the

Hawai`i Emergency Management Agency (HEMA) insisted on issuing a Maile Amber Alert.

172. HPD utterly failed to do so.

173. According to HPD Policy Number 4.59 “Maile Amber Alert Plan”, the

Homicide Detail Lieutenant or designee shall determine whether or not to activate the Maile

Amber Alert plan.

174. LT. THOEMMES was the only person at HPD that could authorize a

Maile Amber Alert for a missing child.

175. HEMA offered to do an Endangered Child Alert (ECA) which has a lower

exigency level than a Maile Amber Alert.

176. HPD also refused to do an ECA.

177. On or about February 12, 2021, HPD Missing Person DET. GARCIA,

asked the FBI for assistance because the needs of the investigation exceeded the capabilities of

the HPD.

178. The HPD requested the FBI to perform exigent law enforcement services

that typically need a search warrant.

179. Without establishing that the situation was “life threatening and/or

involved imminent harm” such requests would be invalid.

180. Later, DET. GARCIA denied that he asked the FBI for assistance in the

Baby Kytana case even though emails and other correspondences show that he did in fact ask the

FBI for assistance.

181. On February 12, 2021, DET. REGO responded to the FBI field office in

Kapolei and pursued the mother of Baby Kytana who was the custodial parent.

19
 182. Through her training and experience DET. REGO knew that Baby

Kytana’s mother was legally responsible for her child’s safety and general welfare.

183. With the intel and resources provided by the FBI’s Violent Crimes Special

Agents, the mother of the Baby Kytana was located in an illegal venue.

184. DET. REGO ensured that HPD Missing Person Detail was immediately

notified by the FBI.

185. Although the witness was located solely by FBI agents and their resources,

the HPD Missing Persons and Homicide Details denied the FBI access to this witness and

purposely withheld information.

186. HPD Missing Persons and Homicide Details went through extreme lengths

to prevent the Bureau’s persistent efforts to participate in the search for Baby Kytana.

187. Immediately after the FBI notified HPD Missing Persons Detail of the

development, LT. THOEMMES called LT. MATSUSAKA and yelled at him because of DET.

REGO’s involvement in the Baby Kytana case.

188. LT. MATSUSAKA reminded LT. THOEMMES that DET. REGO had

specialized training and was doing her job.

189. LT. MATSUSAKA notified DET. REGO in the evening hours of

February 12, 2021, and the following day that she was acting within the scope of her job duties.

190. On or about February 13, 2021, LT. THOEMMES began advocating to

CPT. PLATT that disciplinary action should be taken against DET. REGO for her involvement

in the missing toddler case.

191. At no time did LT. THOEMMES try to understand the nexus between

child abuse/custodial interference and the missing toddler case.

20
 192. LT. THOEMMES wanted DET. REGO investigated for “unauthorized

computer access” directly related to the Baby Kytana case.

193. This would mark the beginning of the whistleblower retaliation against

DET. REGO by HPD.

194. Based on information and belief, the HPD initially mishandled the Baby

Kytana case and then tried to cover-up their negligence.

195. The HPD CID attempted to self-contain the Baby Kytana case by

withholding information and preventing other Law Enf orcement partners from assisting.

196. Accepting outside agency resources and assistance would reveal the true

facts and circumstances and expose HPD’s failures.

197. The HPD also attempted to cover up the fact that RODRIGUES was a

documented “Controlled Informant” who provided services as a subagent for the Narcotics

Division of HPD.

198. Narcotics Division Officer Marites PETERSON had the most recent and

useful knowledge about RODRIGUES’ whereabouts.

199. Officer PETERSON had the advantage of knowing RODRIGUES’

associates such as CARTER and she knew his frequented locations.

200. Officer PETERSON intended to use this most current background

information to search immediately. However, she was prevented by her Command.

201. Instead of searching for RODRIGUES or Baby Kytana, Officer

PETERSON was ordered to report to her office without delay.

21
 202. While off duty and under duress, Officer PETERSON’s Command

ordered her to deactivate & terminate informant RODRIGUES’ packet before she was allowed to

search.

203. Officer PETERSON subsequently searched on her own time.

204. Eventually, it was determined that Baby Kytana was murdered by

RODRIGUES. He has been charged with HRS §707-701.5 Murder in the second degree.

205. RODRIGUES’ friend CARTER has been charged with HRS §710-1029

Hindering prosecution in the first degree, for his role in disposing the body of Baby Kytana.

206. To date, the remains of Baby Kytana have not been located.

ADDITIONAL SEX DISCRIMINATION AND WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION

207. On or about February 17, 2021, OSTL II recovered two (2) juveniles (one

of which was a confirmed trafficking victim.)

208. DET. REGO played a role in recovering the two (2) juvenile females.

209. OSTL II was successful.

210. CPT. PLATT did not like that DET. REGO was a part of OSTL II.

211. CPT. PLATT’s objection to DET. REGO’s participation in OSTL II was a

stark contrast to his previous gratitude and approval during the first OSTL.

212. CPT. PLATT wrote a message on DET. REGO’s previous letter of

commendation for OSTL. “Mahalo Maile, For your successful work w/operation Keiki

Shield/Shine the Light! -Capt. Platt”

213. CPT. PLATT was even more upset when he mistakenly thought DET.

REGO was directing the operation.

22
 214. On or about February 22, 2021, CPT. PLATT contacted Supervisory

Special Agent ED ARIAS of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force of the Attorney

General’s Office, State of Hawai`i.

215. CPT. PLATT told SSA ARIAS that DET. REGO: (1) Had severe

performance issues related to OSTL and other performance issues he could not talk about, (2)

was in the process of being reprimanded, and (3) was under investigation for “unauthorized

computer access” in the missing toddler case.

216. CPT. PLATT also asked SSA ARIAS which State of Hawai`i Attorney

General’s office “TFO authorities” DET. REGO used during OSTL II.

217. CPT. PLATT mistakenly thought DET. REGO’s pending deputization was

from the State of Hawai`i Attorney General’s Office.

218. SSA ARIAS corrected him and informed him that DET. REGO’s

deputization was with FBI.

219. SSA ARIAS replied that based on his experience working with DET.

REGO for the past two (2) years, she was nothing but an outstanding police officer.

220. SSA ARIAS emailed LT. MATSUSAKA the following day and notified

him of the negative remarks that CPT. PLATT said about DET. REGO.

221. SSA ARIAS also told LT. MATSUSAKA that he had never seen any

performance or behavior that was unprofessional from DET. REGO, and that DET. REGO was:

(1) Considered by the ICAC Task Force to be highly professional and considered her an expert in

her field, and (2) She is held in the highest regard by all the task force member agencies

including the FBI, the U.S. Marshall Service, and the U.S. Secret Service.

23
 222. SSA ARIAS also stated that he was completely confused by CPT.

PLATT’s remarks about DET. REGO and initially thought CPT. PLATT was joking, but he was

not.

223. Here, CPT. PLATT continued his sex discrimination against DET. REGO

as well as clearly retaliating against her for whistleblowing to LT. MATSUSAKA, the FBI and

MCCH about the Baby Kytana case.

224. The next day on or about February 23, 2021, SSA ARIAS ordered one of

his agents to conduct a welfare check on DET. REGO to see if she was ok based on CPT.

PLATT’s bothersome remarks.

225. On or about February 24, 2021, CH. BALLARD contacted DET. REGO

to determine if CPT. PLATT’s conduct and comments about her were true.

226. CH. BALLARD also instructed DET. REGO to meet with HPD Assistant

Chief SEAN NAITO.

227. That same day, DET. REGO met with ASST. CH. NAITO and explained

her experiences and history with CPT. PLATT.

228. Specifically, DET. REGO stated that CPT. PLATT:

a. Singled her out because she was female and made her jump

through hoops unlike any other detective,

b. Ignored her,

c. Hyper-scrutinized her work which he did not do to anyone else,

d. Openly opposed her TFO request, and

e. Treated another CID female Lieutenant, CARLENE LAU, in a

discriminatory manner.

24
 229. On or about February 23, 2021, a sex discrimination complaint against

CPT. PLATT was submitted by ASST. CH. NAITO to HPD’s Human Resources Dept (HRD).

230. On or about February 24, 2021, CPT. PLATT contacted LT.

MATSUSAKA and instructed him to monitor DET. REGO and her work very closely, and

not to let DET. REGO work with the FBI or any work with the FBI task force.

231. CPT. PLATT also stated that LT. THOEMMES initiated an investigation

on DET. REGO for “unauthorized computer access” during the missing toddler case.

232. LT. MATSUSAKA responded and stated that he felt DET. REGO’s

computer access was authorized and argued that DET. REGO was working with the FBI and

DET. REGO informed LT. MATSUSAKA of her actions.

233. LT. MATSUSAKA perceived CPT. PLATT and LT. THOEMMES’

investigation into DET. REGO’s alleged “unauthorized computer access” to be discriminatory

and retaliatory in nature.

234. DET. REGO was never contacted about LT. THOEMMES’ accusations,

and nothing came from this threat.

235. On or about February 26, 2021, CPT. PLATT was transferred to District 4

following the complaint that ASST. CH. NAITO made on DET. REGO’s behalf.

236. Subsequently, CPT. PLATT was replaced by Acting Captain

THOEMMES.

237. Acting CPT. THOEMMES immediately assigned DET. REGO to

weekend lock-up duty, a highly undesirable position in the CID.

238. Due to the overwhelming and harassing events, DET. REGO became ill

and called in sick for the weekend lock-up duty scheduled on March 6 and 7, 2021.

25
 239. On or about March 8, 2021, HPD Captain MIKEL KUNISHIMA notified

LT. MATSUSAKA that DET. REGO would need to make-up the weekend lock-up duty shift

because she called in sick.

240. LT. MATSUSAKA told CPT. KUNISHIMA that he believed DET.

REGO was being singled out.

241. LT. MATSUSAKA told CPT. KUNISHIMA that he would make a

retaliation complaint on DET. REGO’s behalf if she was forced to “make up” the shift.

242. On or about March 8, 2021, Acting CPT. THOEMMES mentioned to LT.

MATSUSAKA in passing that he needed to “keep control of [his] personnel.”

243. LT. MATSUSAKA perceived this comment to be directed at DET. REGO

and that she was being singled out.

244. Upon returning to work on March 9, 2021, DET. REGO was notified that

she would have to make-up the weekend lock-up duty shift because she called in sick.

245. DET. REGO felt that she was being singled out and retaliated against.

246. Other CID detectives who routinely call in sick for their rotational

“weekend lock-up” shift have never been forced to make-up the time.

247. In CID, it is highly unusual to assign a “weekend lock-up” shift to a

detective during the same week of said assignment.

248. DET. REGO was given less than two (2) days of notice. The standard

notice is a minimum of two (2) to three (3) weeks.

249. A two (2) to three (3) week notice allows detectives time to adjustment

their schedule. Such as in the case with OSTL, DET. REGO was originally assigned to work that

weekend but was able to trade weekends because she had ample notice.

26
 250. The next day, March 10, 2021, after LT. MATSUSAKA stated that DET.

REGO was being singled out, MAJ. GERONA, CPT. KUNISHIMA and Acting CPT.

THOEMMES reassigned the Child Abuse Detail (DET. REGO) to the Sex Crimes Detail which

doubled DET. REGO’s workload and in effect denied her the opportunity to work with the

VCAC Task Force.

251. Furthermore, Sex Crimes Detail detectives are not required to take Child

Abuse cases. No explanation for the double standard was given when DET. REGO asked.

252. The reassignment also removed LT. MATSUSAKA as DET. REGO’s

immediate supervisor.

253. The reassignment unreasonably interfered with DET. REGO’s work

performance by creating an intimidating, hostile, and offensive work environment.

254. On or about March 11, 2021, DET. REGO was finally sworn into the TFO

position.

255. Even though DET. REGO’s TFO request was approved, she continued to

be retaliated against and endured discriminatory treatment by the HPD.

256. LT. MATSUSAKA was vocal to CID Command about his belief that

DET. REGO was being treated unfairly.

257. Moreover, Acting CPT. THOEMMES could not provide LT.

MATSUSAKA with a direct reason why DET. REGO and Child Abuse Detail was being

reassigned.

258. LT. MATSUSAKA and other CID detectives attempted to reason with

MAJ. GERONA, Acting CPT. THOEMMES, and CPT. KUNISHIMA.

27
 259. The reassignment was not logical, appeared to be disparate treatment,

contradicted Hawaiʻi Revised Statute and breached CID Policy Number 300.17 “Child Abuse

Investigations”.

260. HRS Chapter 709 - Offenses Against the Family and Against

Incompetents (minors)

261. HRS Chapter 707 - Offenses Against the Person. Part V. Sexual Offenses

Part VI. Child Abuse (only relating to child pornography and enticement for sexual purposes)

262. The Department of the Prosecuting Attorney has designated teams of

prosecutors separated by these aforementioned Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes.

263. Child Welfare Services is separated into two (2) different divisions based

on the aforementioned Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes.

264. The training, certifications and orchestration of a Forensic Interview (of

minors) itself are separated into the two (2) aforementioned Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes.

265. Per CID Policy Number 300.17 “Child Abuse Investigations”.

Investigation of child abuse cases, except for sexual assault cases, shall be the responsibility of

Child Abuse Detail.

266. Newly promoted HPD Lieutenant VINCE LEGASPI became DET.

REGO’s immediate supervisor.

267. Around this time, LT. LEGASPI stopped speaking with LT.

MATSUSAKA even though they previously often talked and had lunch together.

268. To date, LT. LEGASPI continues not to speak to LT. MATSUSAKA for

reasons unknown.

28
 269. MAJ. GERONA, CPT. KUNISHIMA, CPT. PLATT, Acting CPT.

THOEMMES and the HPD were clearly retaliating against DET. REGO for whistleblowing as

well as complaining about sex discrimination.

270. On or about March 10, 2021, DET. REGO met with Detective DARREN

LEE and reported the retaliation.

271. DET. LEE ignored DET. REGO’s complaint and attempted to talk her out

of making a retaliation complaint.

272. On or about March 11, 2021, DET. REGO submitted a formal complaint

via a To/From statement addressed to the HRD Chain of Command. DET. REGO reported

retaliation and a hostile work environment, it was ignored.

273. On or about March 16, 2021, DET. REGO was notified by HRD that the

discrimination complaint ASST. CH. NAITO submitted on her behalf was unsubstantiated.

274. To DET. REGO’s knowledge, no witnesses were interviewed.

275. It took approximately only thirteen (13) days for HRD to conclude their

investigation into DET. REGO’s sex discrimination complaints.

276. DET. REGO’s retaliation and hostile work environment complaints were

entirely ignored.

277. HRD forwarded DET. REGO’s complaints to the Professional Standards

Office (PSO) previously known as “IA”, for administrative investigation.

278. On or about March 16, 2021, HPD Captain BRANDON NAKASATO of

the HRD called DET. REGO in an extremely hostile tone and notified her that the City and

County of Honolulu Equal Employment Opportunity office also unsubstantiated her

discrimination complaint submitted by ASST. CH. NAITO.

29
 279. On or about March 17, 2021, DET. REGO was notified that she had to

relocate from her large workspace.

280. Detectives with seniority can move to bigger and nicer workspaces when

they become available. A “rite of passage” based on seniority.

281. After approximately seven (7) years in her workspace, DET. REGO was

ordered to move out of the workspace and into a smaller workspace that was half the size.

282. Going through the motions of physically packing up approximately seven

(7) years of belongings, files, and equipment from her workspace and vacating was emotionally

devastating to DET. REGO and she felt humiliated.

283. By kicking DET. REGO out of her workspace, HPD was once again

retaliating against her for complaining about sex discrimination and whistleblowing.

284. March 21, 2021, was LT. LEGASPI’s first day of being DET. REGO’s

immediate supervisor.

285. On March 21, 2021, LT. LEGASI gave DET. REGO an ultimatum via

HPD email. Despite the fact that DET. REGO had been sworn in, LT. LEGASPI ordered DET.

REGO to justify her Task Force position by submitting a To/From report.

286. LT. LEGASPI informed DET. REGO that further “approval” was required

from Command (MAJ. GERONA, CPT. KUNISHIMA and Acting CPT. THOEMMES).

287. DET. REGO needed to convince Command that her already approved

Task Force position was justified, or it would be unapproved. Thus, making participation in the

Task Force insubordination.

30
 288. Again, even though DET. REGO’s Task Force position was approved, and

she had been sworn in, the HPD CID Command relentlessly continued to retaliate and

discriminate against her.

289. On or about April 1, 2021, DET. REGO notified the assigned PSO

administrative investigation Detective, Richard HO, that she was on leave.

290. On or about April 13, 2021, DET. REGO emailed a supplemental

statement to DET. HO and outlined how she believed that her discrimination and retaliation

complaints were being mishandled and rebranded.

291. On or about April 17, 2021, the FBI was contacted by DET. HO to

specifically inquire why DET. REGO was selected for the TFO position.

292. DET. HO’s inquiry into why DET. REGO was selected was outside the

scope of HPD’s administrative investigation. The FBI did not provide a statement.

293. On or about April 17, 2021, DET. HO emailed SSA ARIAS and requested

an interview stating “It [statement] will mainly center around your conversation with Captain

PLATT on 02-22-21 regarding the issue of Detective REGO’s selection for the Task Force

Officer position.”

294. Here, DET. REGO was in fact being investigated by DET. HO as a “witch

hunt” in attempts to discredit her and fabricate reasons to take away her deputization and

participation in the Task Force.

295. The HPD was manufacturing reasons to investigate DET. REGO in order

to deny her career opportunities. This included denying her industry leading law enforcement

training that is part of the Task Force position.

31
 296. DET. REGO’s documented complaints of discrimination, retaliation,

hostile workplace and the misconduct perpetrated by her Command was being entirely ignored.

297. DET. REGO continued to feel discriminated against because of her sex as

well as retaliated against for complaining about sex discrimination and whistleblowing to LT.

MATSUSAKA, the FBI and MCCH about the Baby Kytana case.

298. On May 3, 2021, DET. REGO used the assigned HPD personnel email

address to send a “Letter to Command” detailing her incidents of discrimination, harassment,

hostile work environment and retaliation. The “Letter to Command'' included supporting

evidence.

299. DET. REGO sent her last plea for help to;

a. Chief of Police Susan Ballard,

b. Deputy Chief John McCarthy,
c. Assistant Chief Darren Chun,
d. Assistant Chief Sean Naito,
e. Administrative Chief Rade Vanic (now interim chief),
f. Professional Standards Office Major Gregory Osbun,
g. Human Resources Division Major Raynor Ikehara.

300. On May 4, 2021, CH. BALLARD ordered CH. VANIC and Assistant CH.

CHUN to “Please make sure that these complaints are addressed and followed up on

immediately.”

301. To DET. REGO’s knowledge, CH. VANIC and Assistant CH. CHUN

have not taken any action or follow-up. To date, no relief has been offered.

302. CID Command’s decision to merge Child Abuse Detail detectives with

Sex Crimes Detail proved to be more than LT. LEGASPI could manage.

32
 303. Consequently, on or about May 10, 2021, a male detective with no

experience with child abuse detail investigations was awarded a pay raise and temporary

promotion to Acting Lieutenant. He became the Child Abuse Detail supervisor.

304. This detective only had two years of investigative experience.

305. DET. REGO has been in CID since April 2014.

306. Awarding a detective, a “Lieutenant’s Temporary Assignment” and all of

its monetary and fringe benefits violates HPD Policy Number 2.28 “Temporary Assignments”.

307. It requires there to be an absent employee position.

308. At the time of both Child Abuse Detail supervisor reassignments, there

was no absent Lieutenant position in the Child and Family Domestic Violence Detail of which

Child Abuse falls under per CID Policy Number 200.49.

309. CID Policy Number 200.49 states “Child and Family Domestic Violence

Detail” - Primarily responsible for the follow-up investigation and disposition of reported

domestic violence felony cases, Abuse of Family and Household Member, Child Abuse,

Endangering the Welfare of a Minor, Endangering the Welfare of a Dependent Person, and

Custodial Interference cases.

310. LT. MATSUSAKA was not absent.

311. There was no lieutenant vacancy in the Child and Family Domestic

Violence detail.

312. The removal of LT. MATSUSAKA was in itself retaliatory.

313. While she was on official leave LT. LEGASPI ordered another detective

to contact DET. REGO about several cases.

33
 314. When the detective felt like he was not respecting DET. REGO’s leave

status, he refused further contact.

315. Subsequently, LT. LEGASPI began texting and sending pictures of cases

to DET. REGO while she was on leave.

316. On or about May 10, 2021, DET. REGO filed a Charge of Discrimination

with the Hawai`i Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) and the U.S. Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) [FEPA No. 21570; EEOC No. 486 -2021-00200].

317. On or about May 25, 2021, The City and County of Honolulu was

properly served with Hawai`i Civil Rights Commission EEOC “NOTICE OF CHARGE OF

DISCRIMINATION” FEPA No. 21570; EEOC No. 486-2021-00200

318. CPT. PLATT, Acting CPT. THOEMMES and Det. LEE have been

charged with Civil Rights violations of Discrimination (gender) and Retaliation.

319. In addition to MAJ. GERONA’s pending 2020 investigations U. S. EEOC

No. 468-2020-00405, Civil Rights violations of discrimination, retaliation and sexual

harassment.

320. Unlike CPT. PLATT’s reassignment to a different division, the remaining

CID Commanders that have been charged, abused their authority and friendships to remain in

their positions of influence and authority.

321. MAJ. GERONA and Acting CPT. THOEMMES remain in CID

unaffected.

322. DET. REGO is expected to work under the supervision of the suspects that

were charged with violating her Civil Rights.

323. DET. REGO has been on leave since March 23, 2021.

34
 324. Enduring prohibited offensive conduct is a condition of DET. REGO’s

work environment.

325. HPD clearly failed to uphold anti-discrimination laws that prohibit

harassment against individuals in retaliation for filing a discrimination complaint.

326. Whereas officers of lesser rank and less “connections” are consistently

subject to HPD Policy Number 5.03 “Restriction of Police Authority” (ROPA), these privileged

commanders retained their police powers and their high-ranking positions.

327. Their misconduct exceeds the requirements for disciplinary actions.

328. HPD Policy Number 5.03 ROPA in part:

“Situations Which May Result In Restricted Authority”

Certain situations which may result in the restriction of police authority

shall include, but are not limited to:

(J.) Civil Rights issues

329. Policy Number 2.21 “Standards of Conduct” in part:

Article VII - Discipline, Professional Guidelines, And Responsibilities.

Section “A” Guide For Disciplinary Action

(1.) Existence of facts established by a preponderance of evidence

establishing that there has been a violation of law, ordinance, the Standard

of Conduct, directive, order, or procedure shall be sufficient to justify the

implementation of disciplinary action under the Standard of Conduct.

330. It is common knowledge that Interim CH. VANIC and Acting DPCH.

LISA MANN are close friends.

35
 331. The appointment of CH. MANN to Acting Deputy Chief was predicted by

the rank and file.

332. It is common knowledge that Acting DPCH. MANN and LT.

THOEMMES are close personal friends. They attended the same school and played basketball.

333. On June 4, 2021, DET. REGO’s FMLA application for leave was

approved for the dates from March 23, 2021, to May 31, 2021.

334. DET. REGO received an extension for her FMLA to date and continuing.

335. DET. REGO needed FMLA leave due to her own serious health condition.

336. The volatile work environment, retaliatory and discriminatory treatment

by HPD severely aggravated her underlying health condition that is normally dormant.

337. On July 2, 2021, DET. REGO received a copy of the “Respondent’s

Position Statement”, further admitting that HPD has knowledge and is purposely ignoring the

Civil Rights violations that HPD officers have been charged with.

338. It is evident by the lack of response from the HPD administration, these

select few are being protected by higher authority within the structure of the HPD.

339. DET. REGO has not received any relief or assistance with returning to a

safe working environment.

340. DET. REGO was forced to exhaust all of her allotted and earned sick and

vacation leave.

341. In August DET. REGO will be “Leave Without Pay”.

342. On August 10, 2021, DET. REGO emailed the newly assigned Human

Resources Division Major, Benjamin MOSZKOWICZ.

36
 343. DET. REGO provided a summary including the involved personnel and

the respective charges.

344. DET. REGO requested Major MOSZKOWICZ’s assistance with locating

a safe working environment without the respondents as her supervisors.

345. As an uninvolved party DET. REGO had hoped MAJ. MOSZKOWICZ

could offer some relief.

346. Neither MAJ. MOSZKOWICZ nor a designee responded.

347. Thus, compounding the harm already caused by HPD.

348. In summation, DET. REGO was discriminated against based upon her sex

and retaliated against for making complaints about sex discrimination.

349. DET. REGO was also retaliated against for whistleblowing to LT.

MATSUSAKA, the FBI and MCCH about the Baby Kytana case.

350. The HPD has displayed a gross pattern and practice of violating state law,

e.g., sex discrimination, whistleblower violations, as well as retaliation against its police officers

who dare to speak up.

351. Not only is there a discriminatory and retaliatory animus in DET. REGO’s

case, but this discriminatory and retaliatory animus against women has gone on for years, e.g.,

Deeann Koanui v. City and County of Honolulu, 1 st Cir. (gender discrimination, retaliation, and

harassment); Conte v. City and County of Honolulu, 1 st Cir. (gender discrimination and

retaliation); Sherman Dean Dowkins et al v. Honolulu Police Department Haw. Fed. Court CV.

No. 10-0087 SOM LEK (gender discrimination and retaliation); Sharon Black v. City & County

of Honolulu Haw. Fed. Ct. CV Nos. 97-01086 SPK, 98-00259 DAE (sexual harassment and

retaliation).

37
 COUNT I
HRS § 378-2, SEX DISCRIMINATION

352. DET. REGO realleges and reincorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1

through 350 as though fully set forth herein.

353. An employer shall not discriminate against an employee based on sex

under HRS §378-2 which states in pertinent part as follows:

§ 378-2(a): It shall be unlawful discriminatory practice:

(1) Because of race, sex including gender identity or expression,

sexual orientation, age, religion, color, ancestry, disability . . .

(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

354. DEFENDANTS’ conduct as described above is a violation of HRS, §378-

2(a)(1) and its implementing regulations.

355. These aforementioned acts and/or conduct of DEFENDANTS entitle

DET. REGO to damages as provided by law. As a direct and proximate result of said unlawful

employment practices DET. REGO has suffered extreme mental anguish, outrage, depression,

great humiliation, severe anxiety about her future and her ability to support herself, support her

child, as well as painful embarrassment among her relatives and friends, damage to her good

reputation, disruption of her personal life, loss of enjoyment of the ordinary pleasures of

everyday life and other general damages in an amount which meets the minimal jurisdictional

limits of this Court.

38
 COUNT II
RETALIATION

356. DET. REGO realleges and reincorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1

through 354 as though fully set forth herein.

357. The treatment of DET. REGO , as described aforesaid, evidences

retaliation against DET. REGO by the HPD for reporting illegal discriminatory practices at the

HPD.

358. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to retaliate

against an individual under HRS § 378-2 which states in pertinent part as follows:

§ 378-2(a): It shall be unlawful discriminatory practice:

(1) Because of race, sex including gender identity or expression,

sexual orientation, age, religion, color, ancestry, disability . . .

(2) For any employer, labor organization, or employment agency

to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any
individual because the individual has opposed any practice
forbidden by this part or has filed a complaint, testified, or
assisted in any proceeding respecting the discriminatory
practices prohibited under this part;

359. DEFENDANTS’ conduct as described above is a violation of HRS § 378-

2(a)(2) and its implementing regulations.

360. These aforementioned acts and/or conduct of DEFENDANTS entitle

DET. REGO to damages as provided by law. As a direct and proximate result of said unlawful

employment practices DET. REGO has suffered extreme mental anguish, outrage, depression,

great humiliation, severe anxiety about her future and her ability to support herself, support her

child as well as painful embarrassment among her relatives and friends, damage to her good

reputation, disruption of her personal life, loss of enjoyment of the ordinary pleasures of everyday

39
life and other general damages in an amount which meets the minimal jurisdictional limits of this

Court.

COUNT III
VIOLATION OF HRS 378 PART V WHISTLEBLOWERS’ PROTECTION ACT

361. DET. REGO incorporates paragraphs 1 through 359 as though fully set

forth herein.

362. The treatment of DET. REGO as described aforesaid, evidences retaliation

against DET. REGO by HPD for reporting illegal practices at HPD under the National Child

Search Assistance Act of 1990 (NCSA) 42 U.S.C. §§ 5779 and 5780.

363. An employer shall not retaliate against an employee based on their

whistleblowing under HRS, § 378-62 which states in pertinent part as follows:

§ 378-62: An employer shall not discharge, threaten or otherwise

discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's
compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of
employment because:

(1) The employee… reports or is about to report to the

employer, or reports or is about to report to a public
body, verbally or in writing, a violation or suspected
violation of:

(A) A law, rule, ordinance, or regulation, adopted

pursuant to the law of this State, a political
subdivision of the State or the United States;

364. HPD’s conduct as described above is a violation of HRS § 378-62(1)(A).

These aforementioned acts and/or conduct of HPD entitle DET. REGO to damages as provided

by law. As a direct and proximate result of said unlawful employment practices DET. REGO has

suffered extreme mental anguish, outrage, depression, great humiliation, severe anxiety about her

future and ability to support herself and her family, as well as painful embarrassment among her

relatives and friends, damage to her good reputation, disruption of her personal life, loss of

40
enjoyment of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life and other general damages in an amount

which meets the minimal jurisdictional limits of this Court.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, DET. REGO pray for judgment against HPD as follows:

A. That this Court award DET. REGO damages for the aforementioned

Counts including but not limited to back pay, front pay, and all employee benefits that would

have been enjoyed by her in amounts which shall be shown at trial;

B. That this Court award DET. REGO all damages proximately caused by

HPD’s tortious and abusive conduct, including, but not limited to, general damages for negligent

and/or intentional infliction of mental or emotional distress, all in an amount to be proven at trial;

C. That this Court award DET. REGO reasonable attorney's fees and costs of

suit herein as provided by statute or otherwise as well as prejudgment and post-judgment

interest;

D. As HPD’s treatment of DET. REGO, as aforesaid, constitutes extreme and

outrageous behavior that exceeds all bounds usually tolerated by decent society. In committing

the above acts and omissions, DET. REGO 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, that this Court award DET. REGO

exemplary or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

41
 E. That this Court retain jurisdiction over this action until HPD has fully

complied with the order of this Court and that this Court require HPD to file such reports as may

be necessary to secure compliance; and

F. That this Court award DET. REGO such other and further relief both legal

and equitable as this Court deems just, necessary and proper under the circumstances.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, August 19, 2021

/s/ Joseph T. Rosenbaum_________

JOSEPH T. ROSENBAUM
ELIZABETH JUBIN FUJIWARA
MARCOS R. BENDAÑA
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MAILE REGO

42
 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAII

MAILE REGO
) CIVIL NO.
Plaintiff, ) (Other Civil Action)
)
vs. ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
)
COUNTY OF HONOLULU POLICE )
DEPARTMENT; JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE )
DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; )
DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE )
UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATIONS )
1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10; and DOE )
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-10, )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
)
)
)

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues so triable herein.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, August 19, 2021.

/s/ Joseph T. Rosenbaum_________

JOSEPH T. ROSENBAUM
ELIZABETH JUBIN FUJIWARA
MARCOS R. BENDAÑA
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MAILE REGO

43