Fujiwara& Rosenbaum, LLLC 1100 Alakea Street, FL 20, STEB Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 June 25, 2025 8 = VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 6 z 8 Written Pursuant to HRE Rule 408: Settlement Communication Dana M.O, Viola Corporation Counsel City and County of Honolulu Office of the Corporation Counsel 530 South King Street, Room 110 Honolulu, HI 96813 Re: Wrongful Termination of Honolulu Police Department Chief Arthur “Joe” Logan - Whistleblower Retaliation and Public Policy Violations Ms. Viola: firm represents Honolulu Police Department Chief Arthur “Joe” Logan in connection with his wrongful termination from his position as Chief of the Honolulu Police Department. This letter serves as a formal demand for relief based on violations of the Hawaii Whistleblower Protection Act ("HWPA"), HRS §378-62, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy under the Parnar doctrine. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Chief Logan served as the Chief of the Honolulu Police Department until his forced resignation on June 2, 2025. Throughout his tenure, Chief Logan maintained an unwavering commitment to upholding the law and ensuring that the Honolulu Police Department operated within legal boundaries, even when doing so conflicted with Mayor Rick Blangiardi's demands. Pattern of Protected Activities (2022-2023) Beginning in late 2022, Chief Logan repeatedly informed Mayor Blangiardi about the Supreme Court ruling in Boise v, Martinez that limited police authority to move homeless individuals. When the Mayor demanded that HPD "move the homeless out of Chinatown," Chief Logan explained the legal limitations and refused to put officers in positions where they could be personally liable. Similar discussions occurred regarding Waikiki, where Chief Logan continued to explain the legal constraints despite the Mayor's insistence thathe "didn't care about that" and that Chief Logan should "come up with legal ways to make this happen." “Cilaphons:(B08) 203-436 © Email Gf frlawkicom © Website: wm flawhicomJn January 2023, Chief Logan informed the Mayor about federel regulations protecting Personal Jdentifiable Information (PI) transmitted over law enforcement radios. Despite the Mayos's demands to give the media access to police radios, Chief Logan maintained that doing so would violate federal regulations and refused. In September 2023, Chief Logan explained io the Mayor the legal limitations on enforcing geographic restrictions imposed by judges, including tae distinction between resttictions from felony versus misdemeanor rests. The Mayar wes upset by this "legal reasoning” and continued 10 demand actions that would exceed legal authority. In late 2023, Chief Logan refused to. bring HPD Public Information Officers (“PIOs") to the Mayor's office for direct criticism, explaining that performance diseussions should he handled through proper channels as these were civil servants and laws govem their employment and discipline, Pattern of Antagonism (2023-2025) Following these protected activities, the Mayor displayed a clear patie of antagonism toward Chief Logan. In January 2024, the Mayor was "very upset" with Chief Logan regarding a lawsuit and accused him of withholding information, despite Chief Logan's explanation that he was not aware of the allegations in the lawsuit. The Mayor also demanded that Chief Logan fire or remove some of the Assistant Chiefs, claiming they were not supporting Chief Logan's goals, Again Chief Logan refused to violate the Jaw by summarily firing command staff. ‘The Mayor held it against Chief Logan “ever since" when Chief Logan refused to bring PlOs to the Mayor's office. In July 2024, the Mayor told Chief Logan he "didn't deserve the evaluation" he received from the Police Commission, which was positive, and that the Mayor was upset that Commissioner Doug Chin had called to inform Chief Logan about the Mayor's displeasure with ihe evaluation. In August 2024, the Mayor demanded that IPD not release an internal survey, despite Corporation Counsel advising that it must be relessed as public information. When HPD ultimately released the survey as legally required, the Mayor was "extremely upset" and told, Chief Logan, *Hf you had asked me I would have told you not to do-such a survey." Forced Resignation (May-June 2025) On May 28, 2025. Mayor Blangiardi summoned Chief Logan to a meeting where the Mayor explicitly demanded Chief Logan's resignation, stating: "You knew this conversation was coming, I am telling you to resign, orf will make it very difficult for you, and you know I ean." ‘The Mayor further threatenied that Chief Logan didn't "want to drag the department and yourself through the drama.” This statement being made by a man who has both, SHOPO and the media on speed dial, The Mayor claimed that the department's vacancy rate was an issve, but Chief Logan explained that FIPD's situation was better than many mainland departments facing similar challenges. Despite Chief Logan's explanations, the Mayor stated, "You are very persuasive, but Pe made-up my miirid, you need to resign.”‘After this coesvive meeting, Chief Logan requested time to consider his options and discuss the maitér with his family. On May 29, 2025, members of the Honolulu Police Commission (Kon Silva and Carrie Okinaga) met with the Mayor to protest andl ask for reconsideration after Chie Logan informed them about the Mayor's threats to force his resignation, Evidence strongly suggests the Mayor had predetermined Chief Logan's removal and had already arranged for his replacement before Chief Logan itad even made his decision. Ben Moszkowiez, who the Mayor “sttongly recommended” as interim Chief, issued a letter on Jume 2, 2025, stating that the Mayor had contacted hira “three (3) days prior" (May 30,2025) to inform him that Chief Logan was “unexpectedly retiring." This timeline is particularly troubling as Chief Logan did not, inform the Mayor of his decision until June 2, 2025 On June 2, 2025, Chief Logam informed the Mayor of his decision to retire rather than subject his family and department to the threatened "drama". Chief Logan told the Mayor he "would put something out before the news so te department can hear it from me," but the Mayor announced the resignation before Chief Logan could inform his department. As Chief Login exited the Mayor's office, there was a Hawaii News Now camera “pointed straight at [him]” and reporter Allyson Blair waiting to ask for comment. The Mayor helda press: conference at 4:00 PM that day to announce Chief Logan's "resignation" and Ben Moszkowiez-as the interim Chief. On June 4, 2025, during a vabinet meeting that Chief Logan attended, the Mayor told the cabinet that Chief Logan was retiring. Later that day, itran interview with Hawaii News Now, the Mayor claimed "Joe Logan walked in here and told me he was going to retire" on Monday afternoon, ‘contradicting the fact that the Mayor had summoned Chief Logan to his office on May 28 to demand his resignation and had already contacted his replacement by May 30. On June 6, 2025, Ben Moizkowiez approached Chief Logan and stated that he "didn’t know anything about this" until he received a call from the Mayor on Friday, May 30, 2025, asking if he would be the interim Chief and the next HPD Chief. See attached for your reference Ben Moszkowiez resignation letter, LEGAL CLAIMS 1. Violation of Hawaii Whistleblower Protection Act (HRS §378-62) ‘The HWPA prohibits an employer ftom discharging, threatening, of otherwise discriminating against an employee regarding compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee reports or is about to report a violation or suspected violation of law, rule, ordinance, or regulation. Acclaim unde: the HWPA requires three elements as established in You v. Longs Drugs Stores California, LLC, 937 F. Supp. 2d 1237, 1258 (9th Cir. 2013): (1) the employee engaged in protected conduiet as defined by the HWP; (2) the employer took adverse action against the 3employee; and (3) there was a causal connection between the alleged retaliation and the whistleblowing. Importantly, as held in Fekumofo v. State, £50 Hawaii 467, 504 P.3d 1035 (App. 2022), there is no requirement thatthe employee must cite to the partionlar law being violated; the HWPA is a remedial statute that should be construed liberally to accomplish its purpose of protecting employees who report suspected violations of law. Ttappears clear based on the facts submitted abéve that Mayor Blangiardi wrongfully terminated Chief Logan based of Chief Logan’ shistory of whistleblowing thet upset and frustrated Mayor Blangiardi 2, Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Parnar Claim) Hawaii common law provides a cause of action for at-will employees who ate wrongfully dischatged in violation of "clear mandaie of public policy” as established in Parnar v. Antericana Hotels, Inc,, 65 Hav. 370,652 P2625, 631 (1982). The Hawaii Supreme Court in Ross v, Stouffer Hotel Co., 76 Have. 454, 879 P.2d 1037 (1994) has expressly recognized that employee whistleblowers may bring 2 Pamar wrongful termination tort claim even when their rights ate also protected under HRS § 378-62. As interpreted by the Ninth Circuit in Fliarimo v, Aloha Island Airy Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1067 (Oth Cit. 2002), a Parmar claim requires that: (1) the discharge violetes a clear mandate of public policy; (2) the employee was engaged in protected activities such s refusing to commit an ‘unlawful act, performing an important public obligation, or exercising a statutory right or privilege: and (3) there is evidence of @ causal connection benween the termination and the protected action. The Mayor's foreed termination of Chief Logan is contrary to the express provisions of the Honolulu City Charter, specifically Section 6-1603, (see attached) which vests exclusive removal authority in the Police Commission, This action violates the Charter and, under the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision in Parnary, Americane Hotels, Lid., eonstituies a termination in violation of public policy. Charter Authority Over HPD Chief Removal ‘© Section 6-1603 of the Revised Charter of the City and County of Honolulu provides: “he chief of police shall be appointed by the police coraraission for a tem of five years. The chief shall serve at the pleasure of the police commission and shall not attain any property interest in the position of chief of police. The police commission may remove or suspend the chief of police’at any time prior to the expiration of the five year appointment.”© The Charter is explicit: oaly the Police Commission has the authority to remove cor suspend the Chief of Polive. The Mayor has no such power. Mayor's Lack of Authority The Charter does not grant the Mayor any authority to terminate or force the resignation of the Chief of Police. The Mayor's tole is limited fo appointing and removing.department heads in other executive agencies, but the Chief of Police is an express exception, with appointment and removal powers reserved to the Police Commission. Violation of Public Policy (Parnar) © In Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Ltd, 65 Haw. 370, 652 P.2d 625 (1982), the Hawaii Supreme Couit recognized 2 cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of pubiic policy. Tenninations that contravene a clear mandate of public polioy, as expressed in statutes or constitutional provisions, are actionable. © The Honolulu Charteris the governing law for city administtationand reflects the public policy of the City and County of Honolulu. By disregarding the Charter’s removal procedure:and unilaterally forving the Chief's resignation, the Mayor’s ction is contrary to the Charter’s mandate and, therefore, to public policy. ce The forced termination of Chief Logan by the Mayors ultra vires and void under the Charter. It also constitutes a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy under Parnar, as itdirectly contravenes the Charters exclusive removal process. 3. Constructive Discharge Under Ninth Circuit Precedent Chief Logan's resignation constieutes a constructive discharge under well-established Ninth Cirouit precedent. In Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 147 (2004) and Polanal y, Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174, 1184 (9th Cir. 2007). the courts defined vonsttuctive discharge as occurring "when the working conditions are so intolerable shat'a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would feél’compelled to resign.” ‘The Ninth Circuit further elaborated in Emeldi vy. Univ: of Or., 673 F.3d 1218, 1225 (9th Cir, 2012) that constructive discharge occurs when “a retaliating employer creates working conditions so extraordinary-and egregious as to overcome the normal motivation of a competent, diligent, and reasonable employee fo remain on the job.” The Supreme Court in Green v: Brennan, 378 U.S. 547, 355 (2016) established that constrictive discharge has two elements: (1) conduct to the point where a reasonable person would htave felt compelled to resign, and (2) actual resignation, In Chief Logan’s case, the Mayor's explicit threatthat he would "makeit very difficult" for Chief ‘Logan if he did not resign cteated precisely the type of intolerable working conditions that would compel any reasonable person to resign. This is further evidenced by:1, The Mayor had-afready contacted Chief Logan's replacement before Chief Logen had even made his decision to retire, denionstrating the predetermined nature of the forced resignation; 2. The Mayor arranged for media to be present when Chief Logan exited his office after their June 2 meeting, with a camera "pointed. straight at {hitn]" anid a reporter waiting to ask for comment, creating « humiliating situation designed'to pressure Chief Logan; ‘The Mayor anniouriced Chief Logan's tesignation" before Chief Logan could inform his Gepariment, despite Chief Logan telling the Mayor he."would put something out before the news so the department can hear it from me”, further demonstrating the coercive nature of the resignation. ‘These facts esiablish that Chief Logan's resignation was not voluntaiy, but was a constructive discharge resulting from the Mayor's retaliatory actions. PROTECTED ACTIVITIES Chief Logan repeatedly engaged in protected activities by reporting to the Mayor that certain requested actions would violate laws, regulations, and court rulings and thereby refusing to undertake such actions. Specific instances includ 1. Enforcement of Homeless Policies: Chief Logan repeatedly informed the Mayor about the Supreme Court ruling in Boise ». Martinez that limited police authority to. move homeless individuals. When the Mayor demanded that HPD "move the homeless out of Chinatown," Chief Logan explained the legal limitations and refused to put officers in s where they could be personally liable. Similar discussions occurred regarding , where Chief Logan continued’to explain the legal constraints despite the Mayor's insistence that he "didn't care about that" and that Chief Logan should "come up ‘with legal ways to make this happen." Radio Ener and Federal Regulations: Chief Logan informed the Mayor about federal regulations protecting Personal Identifiable Information (PII) transmitted over aw enforcementradios. Despite the Mayor's demands to give media access to police radios. Chief Logan maintained that doisiz so would Violate federal regulations. 3. Geographic Restrictions Enforcement: Chief Logan explained to the Mayor the legal limitations on enforoing geographic restrictions imposed by judges, including: the distinction between restrictions from felony versus misdemeanor acrests. The Mayor was upset by this "legal reasoning” and continued to demand actions that would exceed legal authority 4. Protection of HPD Personnel: Chief Logan refused to bring HPD Public Information Officers to the. Mayor's office for direct criticism, explaining that performance discussions should be fumdied through proper channels. » ADVERSE ACTION Chief Logan suffered adverse employment action when he was constructively discharged through the Mayoy’s coercive demand for his resignation, The Mayor explicitly told Chief Logan to resign or face consequences, stating "I will make it very difficult for you, and you know I 6can," This constitutes a constructive discharge, as no reasonabis person in Chief Logan's position would have felt they had any choise but to resign. ‘The coercive nature of this resignation is further evidenced by: 1. The Mayor had already contacted Chief Logan's replacement before Chief Logan had even made his decision to retire. 2, The Mayor arranged for media to. be present when Chief Logan exited his office after their June 2 meeting, with a camera "pointed straight at [him|" and 4 reporter waiting to ask for comment. 3. The Mayorartnounced Chief Logan's "resignation" before Chief Logan could inform his department, despite Chief Logan (elling the Mayor he "would put somettiing out before the news so the department can hear it from me." CAUSAL CONNECTION ‘There is a clear causal connection between Chisf Logan's protected activities and bis forced. resignation: 1. Temporal Proximity: As established in Aifen v. Iranon, 283 F.3d 1070, 1077-78 (th Cir, 2002), Davis v. Team Elec. Ca.,520 F.3d 1080, 1094 (9th Cir, 2008), and Passantina +, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., Inc., 242 ¥.3d 493, 507 (9th Cit, 2000), proximity in time may support an inference of retaliation sufficient to survive summaiy judgment. * Chief Logan's forced resignation came afier years of protected ‘activities, ‘with inereasing tension in the months leading up to his termination. 2. Pattern of Antagonism: As noted in Coszatter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 978 (9th Cir, 2003) and Kachmarv. SunGard Data Sys., Ine.. 109 ¥.34 173, 177 Grd Cir. 1997), the court must lookto the totality of the circumstances and consider whether there was a “pattem of antagonism" following the protected conduct. The timeline reveals a clear pattern of gntagonisin from the Mayar following Chief Logan's protected activities, including: © The Mayor expressing that he was "very upset” with Chief Logan on multiple oceasions after Chief Logan explained legal limitations. 9 The Mayor holding itagainst Chief Logan "ever since" when Chief Logan refused to bring PIOs to the Mayor's office o The Mayor telling Chief Logan he "didn't deserve the evaluation he received from the Police. Commission, which was positive. 3. Direct Evidence: The Mayor's statement that Chief Logan should resign or face consequences that would "make it very difficult’ for him provides direct evidence of retaliatory intent. DEMAND FOR RELIEF Based on the foregoing, we demand the following relief:1. Payment of all the wages Chief Logan would have.carned in the final 2 years of his 5- year term: $534,240.00 Compensatory dameges for emotional distress, harm to reputation other special damages anid money for his atiomeys’ fees: $250,000.00 3. A writen apology from the Mayor acknowledging the wrongtiul nature of Chief Logan's termination. 8 ‘Total Monetary Demand: $784,240.00 Both the HWPA and the Parnar doctrine provide for these remedies, including attorney fees, actual damages, and punitive damages. CONCLUSION We request a response to this demand within fourteen (14) days. If we do not receive # satisfactory response within that time, we will proceed with filing a public lawsuit agaiast the City and County of Honolulu for violations of the Hawaii Whistleblower Protection Act and ‘wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Tf this matter cannot be resolved short of litigation, we are also looking into pursuing claims of Constitutisnal violations and false Hight’defamation. This letter serves as notice of our intent to pursue all available legal remedies. We reserve all rights and waive none. ney for Chief Joe Logan