“A Supervisor Switch May Be Reasonable” – The New Hawaiʻi Precedent from Gima v. City & County of Honolulu (Haw. 2025)

1. Introduction

In June 2025 the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion in Gima v. City and County of Honolulu. The case involved Ann Gima, a long–time Real Property Technical Officer (RPTO) who alleged disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation after years of conflict with her supervisor, Robert Magota. The Court reversed summary judgment on her discrimination and retaliation claims, announced a significant clarification regarding requests for different supervisors as potential reasonable accommodations, and remanded for trial.

The judgment answers several recurring questions in workplace–disability litigation:

• When does anxiety/depression qualify as a “disability” under HRS § 378-1?
• Can asking for a new supervisor ever be a reasonable accommodation?
• How much “temporal proximity” is needed to infer discrimination or retaliation?
• What evidentiary showing defeats summary judgment on pretext?

2. Summary of the Judgment

Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Gima, the Court held:

1. Disability Discrimination – Prima Facie Met. Gima’s anxiety and major depressive disorder constituted a disability; she was qualified with accommodation; and her substandard review and demotion could be found to be “because of” her disability.
2. Alternate Supervisor Request Not Per Se Unreasonable. The Court rejected a categorical rule barring such requests and adopted a case-by-case analysis.
3. Interactive Process Was Sufficient. Although the request was facially reasonable, the City satisfied its duty by offering transfer through its Priority Placement Program when Magota was still employed, and Gima later benefitted from Magota’s retirement.
4. Retaliation – Genuine Issues Remain. Protected activities (2016 HCRC complaints and 2017 accommodation request), adverse actions (2018 review/demotion), and evidence of causation/pretext precluded summary judgment.
5. Exhaustion Met. Gima’s HCRC charges broadly referenced retaliation; her civil complaint was liberally construed to include retaliation for the 2017 accommodation request.

Accordingly, summary judgment was affirmed on the failure-to-accommodate claim but vacated on discrimination and retaliation, and the case was remanded.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and their Influence

• French v. Hawai‘i Pizza Hut, 105 Haw. 462 (2004) – set the three-part test for disability discrimination and emphasized individualized inquiry. The Court used French to measure prima facie proof and reasonableness of accommodation.
• Bitney v. Honolulu Police Dep’t, 96 Haw. 243 (2001) – defined “major life activities.” It guided the Court in recognising reading, concentrating and working limitations caused by depression/anxiety.
• Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, 96 Haw. 408 (2001) – burden-shifting for retaliation and discrimination; reiterated here.
• Ninth Circuit Authorities – Hamilton v. GlaxoSmithKline (D. Mont. 2019) and Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison (9th Cir. 2002) persuaded the Court that alternate-supervisor accommodation cannot be barred categorically and that employers need not provide the exact accommodation requested.
• Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2003) – rejected rigid temporal-proximity rules; the Court followed this flexible approach.
• Adams v. CDM Media USA, 135 Haw. 1 (2015) – defined “legitimate, non-discriminatory reason” and “cat’s-paw” theory, both central to the pretext discussion.

3.2 Key Legal Reasoning

3.2.1 Disability Status

The Court found that anxiety and major depressive disorder fall squarely within “mental impairments” under HRS § 378-1 and HAR § 12-46-182. Importantly, the condition need not completely incapacitate; substantial limitation in any of several major life activities suffices. The mistaken equation of a return to work with absence of disability was firmly rejected.

3.2.2 Qualified Individual with a Disability

A worker is “qualified” if she can perform essential duties with a reasonable accommodation. The Court accepted Gima’s evidence (20-plus years of positive performance, rebuttals to evaluations, absence of prior discipline) as creating a fact issue, despite substandard ratings.

3.2.3 Alternate Supervisor as Potential Accommodation

The Court announced its new rule: “Requesting an alternate supervisor is not per se unreasonable; the reasonableness must be evaluated individually.” This aligns with federal persuasive authority and with Hawaiʻi’s “individualized inquiry” ethos from French/Bitney. Whether such a change imposes undue hardship depends on size, staffing flexibility, and impact on operations.

3.2.4 Interactive Process

Although the request itself was potentially reasonable, the employer need only offer a reasonable accommodation, not the employee’s preferred one. The City’s Priority Placement Program and timely transfer offer satisfied HAR § 12-46-187(b). Once Magota retired, the problem evaporated; the Court therefore upheld summary judgment on the stand-alone accommodation claim.

3.2.5 Pretext and Cat’s-Paw

Evidence of:

• Timing (negative review < 3 months after return from disability leave)
• Supervisor knowledge of disability and complaints
• Disputed factual assertions in evaluations
• Prior animus by Magota shaping Takara’s decision (“cat’s-paw”)

collectively created triable fact questions on pretext for both discrimination and retaliation.

3.2.6 Retaliation Causation

Rejecting mechanical timing rules, the Court held that a two-year gap can still support causation when viewed with the full record, especially where the employer’s first adverse step (Jan 2017 evaluation) followed quickly after protected HCRC filings (Mar/Nov 2016).

3.3 Impact of the Decision

• Accommodation Doctrine Expanded. Employers statewide must now evaluate “supervisor swap” requests on their merits instead of dismissing them out of hand.
• Interactive Process Guidance. Participation in an existing transfer/placement program can satisfy interactive duties if it genuinely addresses the limitation.
• Litigation Strategy. Plaintiffs can rely on circumstantial proof and disputed evaluations to survive summary judgment; defendants must marshal more than performance memos to show legitimate motives.
• Public-Sector Compliance. Counties and State departments may need to craft clear policies for reassignment or hierarchy-based supervision adjustments.
• Temporal Proximity Revisited. Hawaiʻi courts may employ a more holistic approach, examining the entire chain of events rather than rigid calendar intervals.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Reasonable Accommodation

An adjustment to the workplace or job that enables a qualified employee with a disability to perform essential duties, unless it causes “undue hardship” (significant difficulty or expense) for the employer.

Interactive Process

A collaborative dialogue between employer and employee to identify feasible accommodations. It is iterative, fact-specific, and must be undertaken in good faith.

Prima Facie Case

The basic showing a plaintiff must make to shift the burden of proof to the employer. In discrimination: disability, qualification, and adverse action because of disability. In retaliation: protected act, adverse action, causal link.

Cat’s-Paw Theory

Liability where a biased lower-level employee influences an unbiased decision-maker, making the employer responsible for the bias.

Pretext

A false reason given by an employer to hide its true discriminatory or retaliatory motive. Evidence can include inconsistent stories, timing, or suspicious remarks.

5. Conclusion

Gima v. City & County of Honolulu breaks new ground by explicitly recognizing that a request for a different supervisor may constitute a reasonable accommodation under Hawaiʻi law. It reinforces the individualized, fact-rich nature of disability analysis, clarifies exhaustion and pleading standards, and warns employers that performance critiques closely following protected activity or disability leave will be scrutinized for pretext. While the City ultimately prevailed on the narrow failure-to-accommodate claim due to its transfer efforts, its broader victory was overturned, and the case will proceed to trial on discrimination and retaliation. The ruling will likely reshape human-resources protocols across the State, encouraging proactive dialogue, flexible supervisory structures, and thorough contemporaneous documentation to withstand judicial review.