NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI`I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER



NO. 26463





IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I





STEPHANIE C. STUCKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAUL R. BROWN
            IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS INTERIM DISTRICT
            SUPERINTENDENT, DEPARMTENT OF EDUCATION, STATE OF
            HAWAI`I; DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, STATE OF HAWAI`I;
            ELIZABETH AYSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER OFFICIAL
            CAPACITY AS PRINCIPAL, IAO INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL; NOEL
            KURAYA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE
            DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, STATE OF HAWAII, Defendants-
            Appellees, JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE
            CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE
            GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-10; DOE BUSINESS ENTITIES 1-10;
            Defendants





APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(Civ. No. 99-0068(3))



ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(By: Lim, Presiding Judge, Foley and Fujise, JJ.)

Plaintiff-Appellant Stephanie C. Stucky's (Stucky) November 21, 2006 Motion for Reconsideration of Summary Disposition Order Filed on November 13, 2006 points out that this court did not explicitly rule on, and urges that the recent decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 126 S. Ct. 2405 (2006) is relevant to, her retaliation claim.

As to the former, we take this opportunity to make patent that this court's expression of approval of the trial court's determination, that the personnel actions taken against Stucky in this case were not motivated by the filing of her complaints, was an adverse ruling on her retaliation claim.

As to the latter, Stucky's retaliation claim is no longer based on any federal statute and Burlington Northern was not a case construing Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapters 368 and 378. Thus, it is inapposite to the present dispute. Assuming, arguendo, that Burlington Northern should nevertheless be taken as guidance in state law-based retaliation claims, it is of no moment as it does not illuminate the topic at issue here, whether Stucky's employer had non-retaliatory motives for the personnel actions taken.

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, November 30, 2006.

On the motion:


Mary Blaine Johnston,
for Plaintiff-Appellant.