A First Circuit Court jury is expected to return today for a second day of deliberations after hearing conflicting accounts of why former Hawai‘i Tourism Authority executive Isaac Choy lost his job with Choy’s attorney arguing he was retaliated against for whistleblowing and the state contending he was fired for workplace misconduct substantiated by an independent investigation.
Choy, HTA’s former vice president of finance and interim chief administrative officer, alleges state officials violated public policy and the state’s Whistleblower Protection Act by retaliating against him after he raised concerns about procurement, contracting and spending practices. He is suing the Hawai‘i Tourism Authority, Gov. Josh Green’s chief of staff Brooke Wilson, and Caroline Anderson, HTA interim president and CEO.
Judge Taryn Tomasa will decide Choy’s whistleblower and wrongful termination claims, while the jury will determine whether Anderson and Wilson are liable for damages. Closing arguments were heard Friday in the case, which began Sept. 10.
The investigation that led to Choy’s firing began after allegations were publicized in May 2025 that he made discriminatory remarks and demeaned female colleagues.
Choy, who represented Manoa in the state House of Representatives from 2008 to 2018 and served as state tax director from 2020 to 2022, joined HTA in 2023 as vice president of finance and later was assigned interim chief administrative officer duties. At one time, he was favored by some HTA board members and state lawmakers as their pick for HTA’s president and CEO.
Choy has denied allegations that he is racist or sexist. He contends that he was targeted because he raised concerns about HTA’s procurement and spending practices, including matters involving former HTA Board Chair Mufi Hannemann, who had close relationships with some of the complainants.
Don’t miss out on what’s happening!
Stay in touch with breaking news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It’s FREE!
Anderson testified that she placed Choy on unpaid leave pending investigation on May 9, 2025, after discussing the allegations
with Wilson and Brenna Hashimoto, the state Department of Human Resources Development director. Choy was an at-will employee,
but the state requires that claims of workplace harassment and discrimination are investigated.
Wilson testified that she terminated Choy from his job effective Sept. 15, 2025, after reviewing an independent investigative report that substantiated roughly 10 of 24 workplace discrimination and harassment allegations covering multiple complainants over multiple occasions.
Both Wilson and Anderson testified that Choy’s alleged whistleblower activities played no role in either the independent workplace investigation or the decision to terminate him.
Trisha Chiemi Gibo , an attorney for the defendants, noted in closing remarks on Friday that neither Choy nor his attorney Bruce Voss, who was present during the investigator’s interview, brought up the whistleblower claims during that process.
Gibo argued that the case was driven by substantiated misconduct rather than retaliation, pointing to an investigation that included 36 interviews and concluded Choy engaged in racist and sexist conduct.
“The defendants did
their job,” Gibo told jurors. “What you heard in this courtroom was not simple name calling. It was an unchecked pattern of racist and sexist comments and misconduct directed at any one that stood in his way of becoming HTA’s president and CEO.”
Gibo highlighted findings from the report that Choy referred to Native Hawaiians as “dumb Hawaiians,” made remarks about “smoke signals” and “drums,” called Anderson a “bimbo,” asked a subordinate if she wanted to be his “second wife” and made other comments that the investigator determined were discriminatory or misogynistic.
The investigator substantiated a claim that he said in the presence of an HTA subordinate, “I only know one Hawaiian word, Lolo! Like those guys in the room,” while gesturing to the HTA board room.
She also substantiated that Choy made comments that he could do whatever he wanted because state Department of Business, Economic Development &Tourism director Jimmy Tokioka had his back.
Gibo argued that many of the procurement and contracting concerns cited by Choy were matters that he was expected to address as part of his job and were not the reason for his termination.
“It wasn’t retaliation,” Gibo said. “Mr. Choy was not reporting violations for the public record. He was trying to protect himself from consequences for his racist and sexist behavior.”
Gibo highlighted 99 pages of text messages and testimony from Tokioka, which she said made clear that their friendship prevented Tokioka from objectively handling employment matters involving Choy. She also highlighted texts between Tokioka and Choy that referenced former HTA Board member David Arakawa, who she said actively shared confidential information with Choy while he was on leave.
Gibo also cited testimony from Choy’s former legislative office manager, Carole Hagihara, who now works at HTA and testified that she heard him make some of the remarks cited in the investigation despite describing herself as loyal to him.
“She told you most importantly that Mr. Choy is retaliatory, that this lawsuit is his retaliation against HTA, Ms. Anderson and Ms. Wilson for firing him,” Gibo argued.
Voss, Choy’s attorney, offered a different explanation, telling jurors that although Choy “does have some rough edges,” he was targeted because he investigated and reported procurement, contracting and ethics concerns that generated negative publicity for HTA and state officials.
“Why was Isaac Choy treated like no state of Hawaii employee has ever been treated?” Voss asked.
Voss argued Wilson’s own text messages showed Choy’s whistleblowing factored into employment decisions, pointing to messages referring to a “whistleblower situation” and stating that “Part of the reason for his leave is the whistleblowing issue.”
Voss argued that HTA, Wilson and Anderson did not like the media coverage that Choy’s “protected activity” was generating. He noted that Arakawa, the former HTA board member, testified that he advised Choy to seek whistleblower status after he commenced investigating.
“I knew some people were not going to like it and would want to get rid of him,” Arakawa testified. “No more Isaac, no more problem.”
Voss also challenged the investigation’s integrity, arguing it was “supposed to be neutral, independent and fair. It was not.”
Voss said the investigator left out key witnesses like Hawai‘i Convention Center General Manager Teri Orton, who testified to Choy’s competency on the rooftop terrace deck repairs during the trial. Orton, who is Native Hawaiian, also testified that she never witnessed Choy engage in racist or sexist conduct.
He also said during his closing that the investigator was not able to substantiate all of the allegations and that some that were substantiated lacked precise dates and times.
Voss also noted that some witnesses testified that other HTA employees had made inappropriate workplace comments about a range of topics from gay sex to statements about Filipinos eating black dogs, and yet these employees were not disciplined.
Wilson testified during the trial that the Hawaii Department of the Attorney General received Choy’s whistleblowing claims. But Voss noted in his closing that “the attorney general never came to a conclusion about Mr. Choy’s whistleblowing contention,” and said Wilson “never even asked the Attorney General whether they did an investigation.”
Voss argued the evidence showed retaliation and urged jurors to award lost wages and benefits totaling more than $380,000 as well as any punitive or emotional distress damages allowed under the law.
“We need people like Mr. Choy who are willing to blow the whistle,” he said. “If whistleblowers are terminated and trashed like Mr. Choy was, who in the world is going to be willing to risk their jobs and their reputation to do that?”
Before closing arguments, Tomasa reminded jurors that attorneys’ statements are not evidence and that they alone must determine the credibility of witnesses.
“Even though you are required to decide this case only upon the evidence presented in court, you are allowed to consider the evidence in light of your own observations, experiences, and common sense,” she said. “You are the sole judges of the credibility of all witnesses who testified in this case.”