A First Circuit Court jury on Tuesday found that former Hawai‘i Tourism Authority executive Isaac Choy was subjected to whistleblower retaliation and wrongfully placed on unpaid leave and later terminated from his job, awarding him more than $500,000 in damages, including punitive damages against Gov. Josh Green’s Chief of Staff Brooke Wilson.
Choy, a former state representative and state tax director, joined HTA in 2023 and was viewed by some lawmakers and board members as a potential candidate to lead the agency. But he was placed on unpaid leave from his position as HTA vice president of finance and interim chief administrative officer in May 2025 by HTA interim president and CEO Caroline Anderson and fired by Wilson in September 2025 after an independent investigation concluded he had violated state workplace harassment and discrimination policies.
The case, brought forward by Choy against HTA, Wilson and Anderson, tested whether his removal stemmed from substantiated workplace misconduct allegations or from his efforts to raise concerns about procurement, contracting and spending practices within HTA.
The jury awarded Choy $454,011.66 in compensatory damages, including lost wages, benefits, emotional-distress damages and pay lost during his unpaid leave. Jurors also awarded an additional $50,000 in punitive damages against Wilson. Attorney’s fees, which could substantially increase the award, are expected to be determined later.
Jurors found that Wilson violated the Whistleblower Protection Act and wrongfully terminated Choy in violation of public policy. They concluded she acted outside the scope of her authority, making her personally liable for the $454,011.66 in damages, and found she acted with the “aggravated state of mind” required to support a punitive damages award.
Jurors also found that Anderson violated the Whistleblower Protection Act by placing Choy on unpaid leave but determined she was acting within the scope of her duties and without malice, shielding her from personal liability. As a result, she is not responsible for the jury’s award. Wilson could not be reached for an immediate response, and Anderson declined to comment.
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!
The verdict came in the first phase of a bifurcated trial. Jurors issued binding findings on Choy’s claims against Wilson and Anderson, while their findings on whistleblower and wrongful-termination claims against HTA are advisory only. Judge Taryn Tomasa will decide in the second phase whether HTA is liable and, if so, whether it will share responsibility for the $454,011.66 award. Tomasa also will decide whether additional damages should be awarded for violations of the Whistleblower Protection Act.
Choy deferred comment on the verdict to his attorney, Bruce Voss, who described the ruling as the first significant whistleblower verdict in several decades.
“This verdict should be a wake-up call to the state that instead of retaliating against whistleblowers, they should do much more to encourage and protect people who prevent the waste and abuse of state money,” Voss said.
Deputy Attorney General Trisha Chiemi Gibo, who represents HTA, Wilson and Anderson, said the state will consider its next steps, including a possible appeal, based on the wishes of each defendant.
“We appreciate the jury’s time and effort that they put in. It was a very long trial and long deliberations as well,” Gibo said. “We disagree with some of the things that came down in the verdict … We’re assessing to see what we can do.”
Jury findings
Jurors found Choy engaged in protected activity under Hawaii’s whistleblower law, including reporting suspected government wrongdoing and participating in official investigations, and that it was “a substantial or motivating factor” in decisions to place him on unpaid leave and terminate him.
They rejected arguments that the same actions would have occurred absent the protected conduct. Jurors did not, however, find that Choy’s reporting of Anderson for age harassment substantially motivated the leave decision.
Jury foreman Kevin Floyd told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser that jurors were troubled by inconsistent policies at HTA and questions about whether Choy’s whistleblower allegations were adequately investigated.
While the verdict was unanimous, Floyd emphasized he was speaking only for himself afterward.
Floyd said jurors appeared to find some support for the misconduct allegations against Choy but questioned the timing of his unpaid leave and termination.
“I don’t think there are any bad people. I just feel like there’s flawed people on both sides,” Floyd said. “I think policies and procedures that were strong and were followed probably would have avoided all this.”
Floyd said jurors appeared to view Wilson as the primary decision-maker in Choy’s termination.
“We kind of felt like Wilson was pulling more of the strings,” he said.
Floyd also questioned whether Choy’s whistleblower complaints received meaningful follow-up. While Wilson testified the matter had been referred to the Attorney General’s Office, Floyd said jurors saw no evidence of a resulting report or investigation.
“Where is the testimony of the Attorney General? Did the Attorney General even hear about this?” Floyd said.
Floyd said the apparent lack of follow-through struck him as “gross negligence.”
Conflicting accounts
The verdict capped a nearly three-week trial during which jurors heard sharply conflicting accounts of why Choy lost his job.
The case centered on events that unfolded in the spring of 2025 after allegations surfaced that Choy had made discriminatory remarks about Native Hawaiians and demeaned female colleagues. Anderson testified that she originally had wanted to place Choy on paid leave pending investigation, but made the decision to place him on unpaid leave after consulting with Wilson and state Department of Human Resources Development Director Brenna Hashimoto.
Wilson testified that she made the decision to terminate Choy’s employment after an investigation commissioned through the state ultimately substantiated roughly 10 of 24 allegations involving multiple complainants on multiple occasions.
Independent investigator Anne Marie Puglisi interviewed more than 30 people and produced a report exceeding 600 pages.
The findings, outlined in that third-party report, included allegations that Choy referred to Native Hawaiians as “dumb Hawaiians,” called Anderson a “bimbo,” and made inappropriate remarks to female employees.
Both Wilson and Anderson told jurors that Choy’s whistleblower activities played no role in either the investigation or the decision to terminate him.
During closing arguments, Gibo argued that the evidence showed Choy was fired because of substantiated misconduct, not retaliation.
“The defendants did their job,” Gibo told jurors during closing. “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 anyone that stood in his way of becoming HTA’s president and CEO.”
Voss argued Choy was targeted after scrutinizing HTA procurement, contracting and ethics practices and drawing unwanted attention to agency operations. He pointed jurors to text messages from Wilson referencing a “whistleblower situation” and argued that Choy’s protected activity factored into employment decisions.
“We need people like Mr. Choy who are willing to blow the whistle,” Voss said during closing arguments. “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?”
Jurors also heard testimony from former HTA board member David Arakawa, who said he advised Choy to seek whistleblower protection after he began examining issues that could “upset and embarrass a lot of people.”
Several witnesses called by Choy described him as demanding but effective and credited him with improving financial oversight and operations at HTA. Others, including current and former HTA employees and contractors, testified that his conduct created significant workplace concerns.