Hashimoto

Hashimoto v. Dalton

Good Law
118 F.3d 671·97 Daily Journal DAR 8624·1997 WL 366013·71 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 44,934·74 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 533
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 3, 1997Nos. 95-15827, 95-15960California6,246 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Skopil, J.

In this Title VII action, an Asian-American woman alleges incidents of disparate treatment and retaliation by her former employer, the Department of the Navy. The district court ruled in favor of the Navy on all but one of plaintiffs claims. On the remaining claim, the court concluded that the Navy retaliated against the plaintiff for filing an administrative complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The court awarded attorney’s fees.

The Navy appeals the award of fees. Plaintiff cross-appeals the court’s rejection of her other claims. We have carefully reviewed the record, and conclude that no reversible error occurred. Accordingly, we affirm.

I. Background

Plaintiff Barbara Hashimoto worked for the Navy as a Budget Analyst from April 1984 through June 1986. For most of this time, Captain Craig Hinman was her immediate supervisor and Major Steven Lowery was her second line supervisor—both white males. The relationship between Hashimoto and her supervisors was quite turbulent. Just prior to her termination due to a reduction in force (“RIF”), she initiated an administrative complaint. In that complaint (“Case 1”), Hashimoto alleged that Hinman and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.