Jeffrey Scott Goold Motion in Limine Against Hawaiian Electric

JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD
Electronically Filed
Honolulu, Hawai’i 96815
FIRST CIRCUIT
1CCV-21-0000216
08-FEB-2022
11:48 AM
Plaintiff
Dkt. 40 MLN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAI’I
JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD, ) CIVIL NO. 1CCV-21-0000216

) (Other Civil Action)
Plaintiff, )
) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE
vs. ) TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN
) EVIDENCE FROM SPECIALLY
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, ) APPEARING DEFENDANT
INC.; HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC ) HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC CO., INC.’S
INDUSTRIES, INC.; ELIZABETH DEER; ) MOTION TO DIMISS FIRST
SHANA M. BUCO; JOHN DOES 1-10; ) AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED
JANE DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS ) MAY 21, 2021 [DKT. NO. 32] AS TO
1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE ) ALL UNSERVED PARTIES;
ENTITIES 1-10; AND DOE ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, ) MOTION; ORDER GRANTING
) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN
) EVIDENCE; CERTIFICATE OF
Defendants. ) SERVICE
)
) DATE: March, 3, 2022
) TIME: 9:00 AM
) JUDGE: Honorable Dean E. Ochiai
)
) Trial: None set
)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN EVIDENCE FROM

SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC CO., INC.’S
MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED MAY 21, 2021 [DKT.
NO. 32] AS TO ALL UNSERVED PARTIES
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence and Hawai’i Rules of Evidence 403, Plaintiff hereby
moves the Court for an order granting the exclusion of certain evidence from Specially
Appearing Defendant Hawaiian Electric Co., Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Jeffrey Scott
Goold’s First Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 32] filed May 21, 2021, as to all unserved parties.
This motion is based on the attached memorandum, the attached exhibits, and the record
and file herein.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai’i, February 8, 2022.
/s/ Scott Goold

JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD
PLAINTIFF PRO SE
STATE OF HAWAI’I

Plaintiff, )
) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
vs. ) MOTION
)
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, )
INC.; HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC )
INDUSTRIES, INC.; ELIZABETH DEER; )
SHANA M. BUCO; JOHN DOES 1-10; )
JANE DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS )
1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE )
ENTITIES 1-10; AND DOE )
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, )
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
I. ISSUES
On February 25, 2019, Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. (“HECO”), a subsidiary of
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. (“HEI”), (collectively “The Corporation” or “Defendants”),
fired Plaintiff Jeffrey Scott Goold (“Mr. Goold” or “Plaintiff”) from employment.
Plaintiff served as an IT specialist, a database administrator and analyst, in a non-safety-
sensitive role. Plaintiff will demonstrate beyond rebuttal at trial that Defendants action to
terminate his service violated HRS §329 et al, HRS §378 et al, their own policy, and Hawai’i
Administrative Rules (“HAR”) relative to Americans with disability.

State policy regarding medical cannabis changed significantly in 2015 with passage of an
amendment to HRS §329, specifically 125.5(b):
“For the purposes of medical care, including organ transplants, a registered qualifying
patient's use of marijuana in compliance with this part shall be considered the
equivalent of the use of any other medication under the direction of a physician and shall
not constitute the use of an illicit substance or otherwise disqualify a registered qualifying
patient from medical care” (emphasis mine).
Considered equivalent. When Defendants removed Mr. Goold from service, they violated the
intent of the people. Defendants failed to consider Plaintiff’s legal medication as equivalent.
Plaintiff will demonstrate herein Defendants had no legal, operational or scientific
justification to support their abusive behavior toward this employee. Plaintiff will show The
Corporation denied policy information Defendants were required by their own rules to make
available to him. Even when Plaintiff asked specifically, Defendants withheld this information.
Defendants claim they terminated Plaintiff for failing to pass their corporate pre-
employment drug screen. This claim is defamatory and has harmed Plaintiff’s professional
reputation and career. Based on the rules provided to him, Plaintiff was in compliance and did
not fail the assessment.
Defendants’s reckless behavior caused Plaintiff and his family destructive trauma and
emotional pain. For nearly three years, some 1,095 days, Defendants have labeled the hard-
working, respected family man as some type of common criminal who abuses drugs.
Mr. Goold lost the employment position he earned due to failure of corporate leadership.
Defendants recruited Mr. Goold as an external candidate in July 2018. On Day 1 of service,
August 13, 2018, Plaintiff’s supervisor provided him the HEI Corporate Code of Conduct
Page 2 of 14

(“Corporate Code”) (see Dkt. No. 18, Plaintiff Exhibit 2). This was the only substance abuse
policy Defendants made available to him.
The Corporation now claims they:
“prohibit ‘[a]ny possession of marijuana in any form . . . , or its use or presence in an

employee’s body while at work or while on Company premises, either with or without a
medical prescription[.]’” (see Dkt. No. 36, Defendants Exhibit 1 at Section 5.1,
emphasis in original).
This policy information was not made available to Plaintiff while he was employed at
Hawaiian Electric and corporate rules mandate Defendants must. Significantly, Defendants
withheld admission of their failed obligation in their motion to dismiss.
Mr. Goold did not know Defendants prohibited his medication and believed it was
permitted. Corporate Code restricts illegal and unprescribed use of medications (Section d,
below, p29). Hawai’i legalized medical cannabis in 2000, HSR §329 et al.
As pointed out, HRS §329-125.5(b), incorporated 2015, defined medical cannabis
“equivalent” to any other medication under direction of a physician and not an illicit substance.
Page 3 of 14

To confirm his medication was compliant, Plaintiff disclosed his treatment plan and
sought assurance from assigned HR representative Elizabeth “Liz” Dear (“Rep Dear”) prior to
consenting to the drug assessment.
Mr. Goold claims Rep Dear told him he would be fine in a telephonic conversation about
9:45 AM on February 14, 2019, included as Exhibits 12, 13 and 14. Mr. Goold reported Rep
Dear’s assurance of his compliance to his wife at 1:30 PM that same day, included as Exhibit 15.
Defendants cannot claim their agent informed him of a prohibition on medical cannabis
or suggested he speak with someone else. Defendants cannot deny their agent withheld policy
information related to his medication and failed to make available their Substance Abuse policy.
Mr. Goold was in compliance with the policy Defendants made available to him. Plaintiff
was fired not because he failed the a drug screen. He lost his job because Defendants failed to
follow their own rules, along with Hawai’i and federal statutes.
Mr. Goold’s professional reputation, emotional and mental health, and family continue to
suffer this outrageous failure of leadership and training.
II. DEFLECTION IS WEAK DEFENSE
As Defendants cannot justify their actions, they continue to attack the character of Mr.
Goold. Defendants claim some of Plaintiff’s written complaints to government officials,
corporate attorneys and HR management after they stripped him of employment are void of
merit, “beyond harassment” and of “implied threats.”
Mr. Goold and his family’s situation became increasingly desperate, as Defendants deny
responsibility for their mistreatment, refuse to negotiate directly with Plaintiff, and reject
Page 4 of 14

Plaintiff’s request for accommodation to return to duty — again violating their own policy (see
Defendants Exhibit 2, Substance Abuse Policies and Procedures, Section 4.1).
Plaintiff’s only recourse was to increase awareness of this corporate failure and motivate
Defendants to cease their slander of his reputation, respect the law and desist denying
employment opportunity to some 35,000+ medical patients, many of whom are Veterans.
Defendants have extracted portions of Plaintiff’s commentary out-of-context in a strategy
used in forums, such as high school debate or social media, categorized as “deflection.”
By painting Plaintiff as a bad actor, Defendants deflect attention from their improper
actions and negligent management. Both federal and Hawai’i rules of evidence Rule 403 demand
character evidence be excluded if the character evidence:
1) has slight probative value, 2) is prejudicial in nature, 3) may distract the jury from the
main question of what actually happened on the particular occasion at issue in the trial, 4)
might reward a good person and punish a bad person just because of their character, 5) is
likely to confuse the issues at trial, and 6) that admitting character evidence might result
in an extended collateral inquiry.1
To reduce the burden at hearing, Plaintiff provides a more accurate history of the
termination and subsequent political response. The added facts show Defendants have been the
transgressors, not the victimized employee. Their prejudicial, distracting and confusing evidence
should be excluded. State v. Lui, 61 Haw. 328, 603 P.2d 151 (Haw. 1979)
1 https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/66480/Barkai%20-
%20Motions%20in%20Limine%20Character%20Problems%20and%20Bad%20Acts%20-%20SSRN-
id1435555.pdf
Page 5 of 14

III. NON-CONFRONTATIONAL AND HARMONIOUS CULTURE
Evaluating individual behavior requires understanding of social constructs in the
community at the time. The U.S. Supreme Court wrestled with this complexity discussing
obscenity. Words and actions must be viewed in proper context.
Although this issue is not prurient, two standards of Miller are relevant, Miller v.
California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973):
• A thing must be completely devoid of scientific, political, educational or social value

• A thing must violate local community standards
Corporate Code requires devotion to ‘imi pono or to strive for righteous. Defendants
emphasize nurturing non-confrontational and harmonious behavior.
Defendants removed Mr. Goold from service due to medication he uses for disabling
injuries. No federal or state law, rule or regulation requires this cruel response to a non-safety-
sensitive employee. The Corporation’s internal guidelines, 600.202 Health & Safety is titled,
Substance Abuse Policy (see Defendants Exhibit 1, emphasis mine). Mr. Goold was not abusing
his medication. Defendants cannot claim he was.
In addition, U.S. DOT regulations articulated since 2009 are unchallenged:
“It remains unacceptable for any safety sensitive employee subject to drug testing under
the Department of Transportation’s drug testing regulations to use marijuana,” included
as Exhibit 16 (emphasis mine).
Defendants to this day continue confrontational behavior. Corporate Code demands
employees treat each other fairly (11. Fair Dealing, p21). Corporate Code warrants any policy
can be waived for cause (15. Waivers of the Code, p24). Defendants failed to inform Plaintiff of
the alleged medical cannabis restriction. Their action is not fair. Defendants denied Plaintiff’s
request for waiver. Their behavior is not harmonious.
Page 6 of 14

Defendants violated their corporate community standards, while criticizing Mr. Goold’s
response to their negligence and defense of his professional reputation and family.
Mr. Goold was a MVP-rated employee. His manager stated in his 90-day review:
“YOU have been a great asset to our team and it is your personality and humble nature
that makes all of us so comfortable working together. We have had contractors on the
DBA team before, but never with the synergy and positive energy that you bring with
you. I believe you have had the greatest influence in our success and glad that we
selected the right contractor. You have definitely made your mark here at HECO and have
set the bar very high for future contractors!”, included as Exhibit 17.
Supervisors and coworkers observed Plaintiff closely for some six months. He was an
optimal candidate for accommodation. Those seeking non-confrontation and harmony would
have granted Mr. Goold a waiver and accommodation for his disability. They would have
extended him aloha.
Plaintiff lost his employment unfairly. Unable to remedy his individual injustice, Mr.
Goold uses this incident to motivate change in corporate, social and public policy. Plaintiff
therefore objects to Defendant Exhibits 1-9 in their motion. Out-of-context, this evidence
misrepresents his behavior and deflects attention from their own failure.
IV. BACKGROUND OF PLAINTIFF
As The Company has repeatedly disparaged Plaintiff’s character, a brief review of his
background is relevant. Mr. Goold is a 30-year public health professional and advocate, included
as Exhibit 18.
Page 7 of 14

He is uniquely trained by the University of New Mexico School of Medicine and CDC to
battle the opioid epidemic, encourage individuals and groups to abstain from using opioids, and
guide them toward safer, less addictive and deadly medications, included as Exhibit 19.
In his professional opinion, Mr. Goold strongly believes management at The Corporation
lacks competency in substance abuse education, continues outdated and racial-discriminatory
institutional policy, and violated their own requirements neglecting to properly train managers
and supervisors. Plaintiff is not alone in criticism.
Just months after Mr. Goold sounded the public alarm about poor management, activist
investor ValueAct Capital Management called for shakeup. Founder Jeff Ubben listed numerous
examples of bad management in his November 11, 2019 letter to HEI.
Similar to Plaintiff, Mr. Ubben demanded management reorganization, as the utility
company was deliberating who should follow HEI CEO Constance Lau:
“I firmly believe the best candidate for this crucial leadership role will be found outside
of the company … The company is at an inflection point where management can be
driven either by more of the same inertia or, alternatively, by innovative, forward-looking
thinking and action.”2
Restructuring has occurred. The entire executive management team directing The
Corporation when Mr. Goold served has been replaced, included as Exhibit 20.
Corporate Code when The Company employed Plaintiff has undergone numerous
updates, included as Exhibit 21.
2 https://www.utilitydive.com/news/hawaiian-electric-defends-management-renewables-approach-amid-investor-
dis/567311/
Page 8 of 14

As an American citizen and resident of Hawai’i, HEI stockholder and HECO ratepayer
residing on O’ahu, Mr. Goold states a first amendment defense to his political action to evolve
management and change pubic policy.
V. REQUEST TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE PER RULE 403
A. Defendants’s Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Hawaiian Electric Company,
Inc.’s Health & Safety, Substance Abuse Policy, Section 600.202, dated August 2015. As
mentioned previously, Defendants include Section 5.0 regarding the prohibition of Plaintiff’s
medication. They concealed section 9.0 Training, which requires the policy to be made available
to Plaintiff. The Corporation had six months. Failing their duty, Plaintiff requests exclusion of
Sections 5.0, 5.1, 5.2 and Section 6.2.
B. Defendants’s Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from Hawaiian
Electric Company, Inc.’s Substance Abuse Policies and Procedures (“SAPP”), dated December 1,
1986, and revised August 1, 2015.
Mr. Goold was an external applicant in August 2018. Should have been drug screened per
their policy. He was not. Thousands like him were not. However, he was an internal applicant in
January 2019, included as Exhibit 22. As he was not seeking a DOT-covered position, SAPP
does not require testing (Section 4.1, p27). Due to Corporation confusion and violation of policy
by Defendants, Plaintiff requests exclusion of Section 4.1.
C. Defendants’s Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of an email from Plaintiff dated
March 4, 2019. When terminating Mr. Goold on February 25, 2019, HR director Shana Buco
Page 9 of 14

[“Director Buco”] claimed Plaintiff was engaged in illegal behavior due to his use of medical
cannabis (see Exhibit 12, #23-25).
Plaintiff disagreed with Director Buco’s position and consulted with HPD, FBI and DEA
officials. All authorities confirmed his medication and participation in the Hawaii’s medical
cannabis program were legal. Plaintiff was educating Defendants about the legality of medical
cannabis in Hawai’i and requests exclusion of this email in entirety.
D. Defendants’s Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of an email from Plaintiff dated
March 12, 2019. Plaintiff’s letter is addressed to Governor David Ige, along with HEI President
& CEO, Constance H. Lau, and other community leaders. Specifically he wrote, “I continue my
appeal to HEI President and CEO, Ms. Connie Lau. My team needs me. I need my team. The
company and rate payers need all of us. I seek your help!”
Mr. Goold is engaged in political action to correct an acknowledged public policy
controversy. People may agree or disagree with his prose or literary style, but nothing raises to
the level of abuse or harassment. Mr. Goold’s request upon his elected officials is protected by
the first Amendment. Plaintiff requests exclusion of this email in entirety.
E. Defendants’s Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of an email from Plaintiff dated
June 5, 2019. Plaintiff continues his political action to change public policy. Mr. Goold states
“Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-N.Y) unveiled a plan on Wednesday that would legalize recreational
and medical marijuana …”
He adds, “YOU FIRED ME for using legal medical cannabis — refusing to test for
intoxication — pushing us toward opioids.”
Page 10 of 14

As discussed, Mr. Goold is a certified anti-opioid specialist. Opioid medications kill tens
of thousands of Americans annually. People may agree or disagree with his prose or literary
style, but this is a matter public interest and protected by the first Amendment. Plaintiff requests
exclusion of this email in entirety.
F. Defendants's Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of an email from Plaintiff dated
May 7, 2019. Plaintiff addressed this memo to “Honorable and Heroic Rep. Gabbard and
Freedom Fighters.” Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard was Plaintiff’s representative.
Mr. Goold describes what he believes is the “horror story of the discrimination medical
cannabis patients suffer in Hawai’i.” Medical cannabis prohibition kills Veterans. People may
agree or disagree with his prose or literary style, but this again is public policy advocacy and
protected by the first Amendment. Plaintiff requests exclusion of this email in entirety.
G. Defendants's Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of an email from Plaintiff dated
March 22, 2019. Mr. Goold’s comments describe his recent medical assessment associated with
his injuries and disability. Plaintiff informed Director Buco his surgeon claimed his hip is
“terrible, as bad as it gets.” Mr. Goold writes, “I sure would like to know why I was fired.”
Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with their Substance Abuse policy. He believed he
was compliant with Corporate Code. As Defendants failed to make available their Substance
Abuse policy, he asks, “Why was I fired?” His question appears reasonable. People may agree or
disagree with his prose or literary style. Plaintiff requests exclusion of this email in entirety.
H. Defendants’s Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of an e-mail from Plaintiff
dated July 31, 2019. Defendants claim Plaintiff’s behavior is harassing or threatening to Director
Page 11 of 14

Buco. As Mr. Goold states in the memo, Director Buco’s LinkIn profile appeared in his social
media feed. He did not seek her information.
Mr. Goold was experiencing traumatic depression. He had been out of work for months
and was suffering debilitating physical pain. He just wanted to get back to work:
“I know you’re a good person. Know Liz Deer [sic] is as well. Also assume there simply
wasn’t a sophisticated training program to prepare all of you for medical cannabis issues.
I want you to know I don’t blame you for what happened. You can’t pass on what is not
passed to you. Leadership comes from the top.”
Defendants claim this communication “rose beyond harassment and contained implied
threats.” This is a serious charge. Did Defendants inform police or authorities? Plaintiff was not
questioned by law enforcement. Defendants did not send a letter requesting him to cease. It does
not appear The Corporation actually cared about their employee and this charge is simply
another deflection.
People may agree or disagree with his prose or literary style. Plaintiff is frustrated and
seeking help. The action by Defendants created a crisis for Mr. Goold and his family. Defendants
appear to be manufacturing a claim. Plaintiff requests exclusion of this email in entirety.
I. Defendants’s Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of an email from Plaintiff dated
May 10, 2019. As discussed previously, Hawai’i culture seeks non-confrontation and harmony.
Defendants ended negotiations to allow Mr. Goold a path to employment May 3rd. Non-
confrontational action is to continue, not end discussion. HECO attorney Thao Tran wrote:

“Thank you for your email and the proposed counteroffer. This is to inform you that we
reject your counteroffer and, as you know, our offer is off the table as the deadline to
respond to that offer has passed.”
Page 12 of 14

Plaintiff’s counteroffer was crafted by medical experts to assist Plaintiff meet corporate
standards of no measurable THC-COOH in his system. Defendants’s requirements, created by
attorneys not doctors, demanded a non-evidenced-based process of cold-turkey detoxication.
Mr. Goold had no knowledge how to achieve this goal. THC-COOH resides in a patient’s
fat stores. Although Plaintiff ceased use of the medication, THC-COOH metabolites could
remain measurable for up to 180 days, maybe more or maybe less.
THC-COOH is not intoxicating or impairing. The active pharmacological component is
Delta THC. Mr. Goold requested DOT-type assessment that determined intoxication or
impairment by measuring Delta THC. Ms. Tran denied his request and replied time’s up. Thao
Tran ended the process of ho’oponopono.
This behavior is not accommodating. Defendants demands are confrontational and do not
nurture harmonious relations. Mr. Goold’s comments are not stated as a threat. He promises
political action by rallying over 25,000+ medical cannabis patients (at the time) who are denied
employment opportunity with the company.
America considered a similar challenge, and still struggles, with gay marriage. Members
were denied employment or housing or medical care. They were not equivalent. Defendants do
not treat medical cannabis as equivalent and Mr. Goold is simply asking them to evolve.
Plaintiff’s memo is political speech and HECO is a public-regulated corporation.
Conclusively demonstrated herein, The Corporation failed in its management of Mr. Goold. It
was their kuleana to seek ‘imi pono — to strive to be righteous. Defendants have not met their
social obligations. Plaintiff requests exclusion of this email in entirety.
Page 13 of 14

J. Defendants’s Declaration of Randall C. Whattoff, #2, criticizes Plaintiff’s
complaint to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Mr. Goold believed there was a failure of
leadership at The Corporation and stands by his concerns today. To dispel insinuation of
impropriety, Plaintiff makes available the documents, included as Exhibit 23.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
In this time of the Great Resignation and employers desperately seeking to fill vacant
positions, Mr. Goold simply wanted to work. The Corporation, Defendants, do not consider his
equivalent medication equivalent. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully prays:
1) Exclusion of the specified evidence marked as Defendants’s Exhibits 1-9, in part or
entirety as described;
2) Defendants’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed May 21, 2021 [Dkt.
No. 32] appropriately amended;
3) Hearing on this matter initially scheduled March 3, 2022, 9:00 AM, be continued and
re-scheduled to allow all parities sufficient time to respond to the amended motion to dismiss.
/s/ Scott Goold

JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD
PLAINTIFF PRO SE
Page 14 of 14

STATE OF HAWAI’I

Plaintiff, )
) DECLARATION OF JEFFREY
vs. ) SCOTT GOOLD
)
)
Defendants. )
)
DECLARATION OF JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD
I, Jeffrey Scott Goold, declare and say that:
1. All of the information herein is information based on my personal knowledge that
I learned as an employee at Hawaiian Electric Companies, Inc. (“HECO”). If called as a witness,
I could and would testify to the truth of the matters stated herein except as to those matters stated
to be true on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.
2. On February 14, 2019, I had a number of phone and email conversations with a
HECO colleague who identified herself as Liz Dear (“Rep Dear”). Her email information stated
she was a Human Resources - HR Service Center employee.
EXHIBIT 12
1

3. I anticipated the call from Rep Dear, as Shana Buco (“Director Buco”), who I
believed was HR director at the time, informed me about February 11, 2019, that her associate
would soon contact me to complete additional requirements related to their job offer of database
analyst.
4. Director Buco wasn’t exactly clear what Rep Dear would require of me. Director
Buco’s letter was somewhat vague: “Based on the requirements of the position, you must also
pass some or all of the following: drug screening tests, and a physical and functional capacity
exam, if applicable” (see Exhibit 13). She explained Rep Dear would cover this part of the
processing.
5. In my initial phone conversation with Rep Dear around 9:15 AM, she explained
the company required a pre-employment urine sample. When I asked what drugs were screened,
she said test administrators would tell me when I arrived at the clinic.
6. Rep Dear requested I go to Straub Health Center. She offered me a number of
days and times to consider. As I was new to O’ahu, I didn’t know the facility or location.
7. I explained I suffered injuries and had a disability. Couldn’t walk far. If the
distance was great, I preferred to wait until I could ride my moped to work. I generally take the
bus.
8. She helped me locate the Straub facility using my computer browser and guided
me to the facility relative to my location in Pacific Park Plaza.
9. As the distance appeared close enough to walk, I agreed to submit to testing that
afternoon at 2:15 PM. She said she would send over clinic information so I could walk.
10. Shortly after our phone conversation, I received her email. She apologized as she
had initially provided me with incorrect information about location. She added, “Once we get
your results we will then contact you, if you have any additional questions please feel free to call
me at 808-543-4848.”
11. Rep Dear wrote “we,” so I assumed she meant herself and Director Buco. As I
had additional questions, I responded asking if I could call her privately. My workstation was in
a congregate area and I had not been comfortable discussing my HIPAA issues in the open. She
provided a direct phone number: 808-202-5241.
12. I went to a small office, closed the door, and called Rep Dear using my cell
phone. My Verizon phone log shows the call occurred about 9:45 AM and lasted about three
minutes, included (see Exhibit 14).
13. I disclosed to Rep Deer I was a legal medical cannabis patient in Hawai’i, and that
I required mediation for the pain caused by injuries related to my disability. I assured her I only
medicated at night prior to bed and never before or during work. I explained this was the reason
why I needed to know the distance to Straub. I told her I had reviewed HEI Code of Conduct and
it appeared my medication was permitted. I wanted to double check before submitting to the drug
screen.
14. Rep Dear was so accommodating. She thanked me for being proactive and said I
would be fine. She asked if I had any other questions. I said no and believe she told me she
would inform Director Buco. We ended our conversation.
15. I do not believe I emailed or spoke with Rep Dear again. She did not inform me of
a prohibition on medical cannabis. She did not instruct me to speak with Director Buco or
anyone else. She simply reassured me that I would fine and had nothing to worry about. The
conversation seemed polite, friendly and accommodating. I was very happy.
16. About 1:17 PM, I received a phone call from my wife, AnnMarie Goold. She
generally called me when she got her lunch break. It was a fun day for us. We like to celebrate
Valentine’s Day. We chatted a bit (see Exhibit 14).
17. I informed her of my conversation with Rep Dear, and that I would be leaving for
the Straub facility around 2:00 PM. I asked her if she knew the location. She said she walked by
each day on her way to work, but that it was a big place. She didn’t know exactly where I would
need to go, but confirmed it wasn’t too far from my location.
18. I informed her that Rep Dear assured me my medication would be fine, and
HECO had been kind and compassionate in their willingness to accommodate my disability.
19. I assured her we would have a fantastic celebration that evening and said let’s
give thanks for our blessings and the kindness we’ve received. I encouraged her that her job
would soon become easier. I said I loved her and looked forward to seeing her later. It was about
a six minute phone call.
20. Mid-morning on February 20, 2019, I received a telephone call from Herman Lau,
IT Security. He had work order to modify my email and computer accounts. He asked if I knew
my start date. I told him no. He said he would get back to me and hung up.
21. A few minutes later, Herman called back. He said he had just spoken with HR and
was to relay a message to me that I had been officially approved, “Congratulations, brother!” He
informed me that my start date would be Monday, February 25th. He had some work orders
ahead of mine but would complete the transition early next week. He welcomed me to the role.
22. My wife called around 1:45 PM on February 20th. I told her the great news. We
both were very happy and excited. We talked about about 10 minutes that day (see Exhibit 14).
23. On Monday, February 25, 2019, my world collapsed. I received a phone call from
Director Buco. She told me the company claimed I failed the drug test. She said I could no
longer work for Hawaiian Electric in any capacity. She said the drug screen showed I had been
intoxicated or impaired in the workplace. She claimed I was a danger to coworkers, the company
and general public.
24. Director Buco said the company follows federal law and considers I am using an
illegal drug, that this is a safety issue and I needed to immediately depart the building. She
directed me not to do any more work — just leave everything, collect my personal belongings
and exit.
25. I was in tears. Director Buco’s comments left me feeling like a dirty animal or
criminal. I was having an anxiety attack. Couldn’t breath; couldn’t stand. Didn’t know what to
do. How could this be? HR told us last week I had been officially selected; set my start date for
this morning. My manager and coworkers had congratulated me. I had been working at the new
role since 7:30 AM. Now, HECO considered me illegal? Dangerous? Intoxicated or impaired?
I do declare under penalty of law that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed the 6th day of February 2022, in Honolulu, Hawai’i.
/s/ Scott Goold

Jeffrey Scott Goold
02/11/2019
J Scott Goold

Honolulu, HI 96815
Dear J Scott,
We are excited at the prospect of you joining our team as we transform into a pioneering
utility that empowers our customers and communities with affordable, reliable, clean
energy!
We are pleased to offer you the position of Database Analyst (Job Req#: 3342) in the P
EY QUALITY INTEGRATION & DATABASE SVCS Department of the P SOFTWARE
APPLICATION SVCS Division at Hawaiian Electric Company Inc. Your starting
annual salary will be $100,000, paid bi-weekly. This offer is contingent upon a review of
your conviction record, if any, and motor vehicle record check (if driving is required).
Based on the requirements of the position, you must also pass some or all of the
following: drug screening tests, and a physical and functional capacity exam, if
applicable.
Your employment is at-will. This means that you or Hawaiian Electric Company Inc. can
end the employment relationship at any time, with or without notice or cause.
Enclosed is a brief summary of the benefits you will receive as a Hawaiian Electric
Company, Inc. employee. If you have any questions relating to our company benefits,
please contact the HR Service Center at 808-543-4848.
Should you accept this offer, we would appreciate you signing and returning at your
earliest convenience a copy of this letter and Confidentiality and Inventions Assignment
Agreement, attn.: SHANA M BUCO.
Also enclosed are the instructions to submit your information to our vendor BISI to
complete your criminal conviction record review. This should be done within 2 days of
accepting this offer.
You will be contacted by a Human Resources Service Center Representative to arrange

for employment processing before your first day of employment. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me at .543-7949.
EXHIBIT 13
Page 1 of 2
We look forward to having you on our team!
Sincerely,
SHANA M BUCO on behalf of LORI YAFUSO

P EY QUALITY INTEGRATION & DATABASE SVCS
Enclosures: A copy of this offer letter

Confidentiality and Inventions Assignment Agreement
Acceptance of Job Offer:
I accept this job offer as conditioned above. I understand that this letter is not
considered to be an employment contract and is an offer for at-will employment.

Print Name Signature Date
Page 2 of 2
Billing period Jan 27, 2019 to Feb 26, 2019 | Account # | Invoice # 7811597571
Annmarie Goold
505. | IPHONE X
Talk activity - continued
Date Time Number Origination Destination Min. Airtime Charges LD/Other Charges Total
Jeffrey Goold
808. | iPhone XS Max
Talk activity
Feb 14 9:45 AM 808.202.5241 Honolulu, HI Honolulu, HI 3 -- -- --
EXHIBIT 14
8
Billing period Jan 27, 2019 to Feb 26, 2019 | Account # | Invoice # 7811597571
Jeffrey Goold
808. | iPhone XS Max
Talk activity - continued
Feb 14 1:17 PM 505. Honolulu, HI Incoming, CL 6 -- -- --
Feb 20 1:45 PM 505. Honolulu, HI Incoming, CL 10 -- -- --
9
STATE OF HAWAI’I

Plaintiff, )
) DECLARATION OF ANNMARIE
vs. ) GOOLD
)
)
Defendants. )
)
DECLARATION OF ANNMARIE GOOLD
I, AnnMarie Goold, declare and say that:
1. All of the information herein is information based on my personal knowledge that
I learned as the spouse of Jeffrey Scott Goold. I have been employed in the medical/dental
industry for some 20 years and work with providers and insurers about policy and treatment
plans. If called as a witness, I could and would testify to the truth of the matters stated herein
except as to those matters stated to be true on information and belief, and as to those matters I
believe them to be true.
2. On February 11, 2019, Scott told me his company, Hawaiian Electric Companies,
Inc. (“HECO”), had officially offered him a job as a database analyst. He had formally applied
EXHIBIT 15
1

about a month earlier. He said he worked with a woman named Shana who he believed was the
HECO HR director.
3. Scott told me Shana was very kind and polite, but a really fast talker. She handled
the background check and told him her associate would contact him about a pre-employment
drug screen. He didn’t know when that would occur.
4. Scott is a medical cannabis patient due to a disability and injuries he suffers. He
medicates only at night before bed and never prior to or during work. As an IT professional and
business analyst, he is considered a non-safety-sensitive employee. He has been drug tested for
employment previously. The last company was a federal contractor and simply required him to
provide his medical card and always be fit for duty.
5. We again talked about HECO’s substance use policy. Both of us felt the language
was clear: no illegal or unprescribed drugs. We both believed Hawai’i had legalized and
designated medical cannabis the equivalent of a prescribed medication. He said he would
confirm with the HECO rep when she contacted him.
6. About February 14, 2019, I called Scott during my lunch break around 1:17 PM.
Our phone log says we talked for about six minutes. I wished him Happy Valentine’s Day. He
told me he was going to a Straub clinic about 2:00 PM. He said he spoke with a HECO rep
named Liz. Said she was really nice, helped him find the location for the clinic. He had been
concerned about the distance, but believed it wasn’t too far.
7. Scott told me Liz confirmed his medication would be fine. He said he had called
her privately, and told her about his injuries and disability. He said she was really kind and
accommodating. He was so happy. He had passed the background check. We knew he would
now pass the drug test, as he doesn’t do any illegal drugs or even drink alcohol.
8. I told him to text me when he finished at the clinic. I was also very happy. My job
had been extremely challenging. We were both excited for him to move into a more permanent
role with HECO. He talked all the time about his wonderful manager, Lori, and the close
connection he had with his teammates, as he called them.
9. That night, we celebrated Valentine’s over a nice dinner at home. Scott was so
happy. I can’t remember seeing him so excited. He truly loved his job and coworkers. He said
many times he had finally found his “forever home.”
10. He talked about his experience at the clinic. He had informed the staff he was an
active medical cannabis patient and likely would be positive. He said he teased the staff member
that if he was negative, their test doesn’t work. He said the people were very nice and the test
was quick and easy.
11. About February 19, 2019, Scott told me the doctor from the Straub clinic called to
confirm his positive indication. He said the doctor was aware he was a medical cannabis patient
and had told HECO. He said everything seemed normal. He was one step closer to finalizing the
job requirement.
12. About February 20, 2019, I called Scott at lunch. He was the happiest I have ever
heard him. He said HR had confirmed his official selection and set his start date for Monday,
February 25, 2019. He said they congratulated him. He told his manager and coworkers. All were
very excited and happy for him.
13. Looking back, I simply can’t believe what happened after that. Scott was the
happiest guy on the planet for those next few days. I know he had a lot of physical pain, but he
seemed to be jumping for joy. It clearly was one of the greatest highlights of his life. He was so
proud to tell people we had met here. He and our bus driver had become good friends. She was
very proud of him. He walked very tall those next days.
14. I simply can’t bear to think about the change, how he collapsed, on Monday,
February 25, 2019, when HECO fired him. He went from the highest mountain to the deepest
valley in his life. I was so scared for him; for us after that. I still am.
15. He hasn’t been the same for three years now. Maybe he lost trust in people.
Maybe he lost faith in himself. I’ve never seen someone collapse as Scott did. He was the
brightest star in the sky the week leading up to the termination. I don’t know how to save him
now. He’s just so sad, frustrated and angry. I wish HECO would give my husband back to me!
I do declare under penalty of law that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed the 6th day of February 2022, in Honolulu, Hawai’i.
/s/ AnnMarie Goold

AnnMarie Goold
DOT OFFICE OF DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY AND COMPLIANCE NOTICE

Recently, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidelines for Federal prosecutors in
states that have enacted laws authorizing the use of “medical marijuana.”
http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/medical‐marijuana.pdf.

We have had several inquiries about whether the DOJ advice to Federal prosecutors
regarding pursuing criminal cases will have an impact upon the Department of
Transportation’s longstanding regulation about the use of marijuana by safety‐sensitive
transportation employees – pilots, school bus drivers, truck drivers, train engineers,
subway operators, aircraft maintenance personnel, transit fire‐armed security
personnel, ship captains, and pipeline emergency response personnel, among others.

We want to make it perfectly clear that the DOJ guidelines will have no bearing on the
Department of Transportation’s regulated drug testing program. We will not change
our regulated drug testing program based upon these guidelines to Federal prosecutors.

The Department of Transportation’s Drug and Alcohol Testing Regulation – 49 CFR Part
40, at 40.151(e) – does not authorize “medical marijuana” under a state law to be a
valid medical explanation for a transportation employee’s positive drug test result.

That section states:

§ 40.151 What are MROs prohibited from doing as part of the verification process?
As an MRO, you are prohibited from doing the following as part of the verification
process:
(e) You must not verify a test negative based on information that a physician recommended
that the employee use a drug listed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. (e.g.,
under a state law that purports to authorize such recommendations, such as the “medical
marijuana” laws that some states have adopted.)
Therefore, Medical Review Officers will not verify a drug test as negative based upon
information that a physician recommended that the employee use “medical
marijuana.” Please note that marijuana remains a drug listed in Schedule I of the
Controlled Substances Act. It remains unacceptable for any safety‐sensitive employee
subject to drug testing under the Department of Transportation’s drug testing
regulations to use marijuana.

We want to assure the traveling public that our transportation system is the safest it can
possibly be.

Jim L. Swart
Director
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
Office of Drug and Alcohol
Policy and Compliance
Department of Transportation
October 22, 2009
EXHIBIT 16
From: Goold, Scott
Subject: FW: Meeting
Date: November 14, 2018 at 7:22 AM
To:
From: Yafuso, Lori

Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 10:27 PM
To: Goold, ScoA
Subject: RE: MeeNng

Thank you ScoA for your very kind words. I am sNll very new to supervising, I started managing
this team in May 2017. I just treat everyone as I like to be managed.

But….YOU have been a great asset to our team and it is your personality and humble nature that
makes all of us so comfortable working together. We have had contractors on the DBA team
before, but never with the synergy and posiNve energy that you bring with you. I believe you
have had the greatest influence in our success and glad that we selected the right contractor. You
have definitely made your mark here at HECO and have set the bar very high for future
contractors!

Thank you for being you…keep doing what you do…keep that good karma flowing!

Lori

EXHIBIT 17
Scott Goold: Career as Public Health Professional and Advocate
1991: Directed MASCOT coalition: to reduce youth initiation of tobacco use

1993: Worked with M.A.D.D. after basketball teammate Lance Milford’s family was slaughtered
and obliterated by a drunk driver on Christmas Eve 1992. During this period, concentrated
efforts on a local establishment on Central Ave, famous Route 66, “Foxes Booze & Cruise.” This
was one of many convenience stores that had drive up windows allowing people to buy beer,
wine and hard liquor without coming into the store. Action closed down 100s of such places.
1993: Removed the sale of tobacco products from low-lying shelves for easy shoplifting in
grocery and convenience stores
1995: Created CCAA — Citizens for Clean Air in Apartments — to protect poorer families,
people of color, minority communities and students from secondhand smoke in congregate
housing.
1996-1998: Assigned to CJJCC — Criminal and Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council —
provided research to 1st and 2nd District Courts, legislative and executive officials in New
Mexico, to summarize drug offenses and the burden on courts, probation and parole, law
enforcement, jails and prisons. Authored reports, “Who’s In New Mexico Prisons.”
1999-2000: As a Democratic strategist and based on previous New Mexico prison research,
partnered with Republican Governor Gary Johnson. He was the first executive in nation to call
for legalization of cannabis. Had NM followed our advice, the state would have returned over $1
billion in tax revenue, while businesses would have returned over $6 billion in sales. Instead,
consumers spent this money on products from drug cartels and illegal operations. This delay has
caused further deepening of illicit markets in the state and U.S.
2001: Worked to pass Clean Indoor Air legislation in Albuquerque and across the state
2006: Due to the death of coworker, Alicia, who suffered excruciating pain and much sickness
from chemo and radiation treatments, began working to legalize medical cannabis.
2007: Helped pass Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act to allow beneficial use of medical
cannabis for alleviating symptoms caused by debilitating medical conditions and their medical
treatments.
2010-2013: Admitted to University of New Mexico School of Medicine program associated with
the CDC to reduce opioid use and related opioid addiction.
2019: Began work in Hawai’i to protect medical cannabis patients. Motivated political leaders to
initiate community discussion.
2019: assisted Hawaii News Now to disclose bacteria, inaccurate potency in popular CBD
products [https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/09/12/hnn-investigation-finds-bacteria-inaccurate-potency-
popular-cbd-products]
2020: Senate Bill 64 support and opposition testimony February 15, 2021 (attached)
EXHIBIT 18
OPPOSE SB 64
COMMITTEE ON LABOR, CULTURE AND THE ARTS
Senator Brian T. Taniguchi, Chair
Senator Les Ihara, Jr., Vice Chair
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Senator Jarrett Keohokalole, Chair
Senator Rosalyn H. Baker, Vice Chair
February 15, 2021
Aloha Honorable Chairs Taniguchi and Keohokalole:
While medical cannabis patients appreciate the efforts and intent of Senator Roz Baker, this
legislation codifies discrimination against many patients. For example, stated protections would not
apply to:
(9) Employees who operate or are in physical control of any of the following:
(D) Public utilities, such as the electrical power grid or water source;
In practice, this legislation would prohibit Hawaiian Electric Industries CEO & President Connie
Lau from using medical cannabis if she contracts cancer. Hawaiian Electric Company CEO &
President Scott Seu would be denied medical cannabis authorization for severe pain caused by
arthritis.
Neither these individuals are considered “safety-sensitive employees.” They and thousands like them
should not be denied access to a scientifically-established safe and effective pain analgesic by the
legislature simply for working in a particular industry. This is too broad of an “exemption brush.”
For many, there only remaining option would be an opioid-based medication. Some 500,000
Americans have died from OD or other complications related to opioids. It is not disputed patients
who use cannabis are highly unlikely to die this way.
In 2015, the legislature amended "329" statutes after being the first state body to legalize medical
cannabis in 2000.
They wrote:
HI Rev Stat § 329-125.5, (b) For the purposes of medical care, including organ transplants, a
registered qualifying patient's use of marijuana in compliance with this part shall be considered
the equivalent of the use of any other medication under the direction of a physician and shall
not constitute the use of an illicit substance or otherwise disqualify a registered qualifying patient
from medical care. [emphasis mine]
Consider this: when dealing with scientists, medical experts and healthcare professionals, cannabis is
EQUIVALENT to any other prescribed medication.
Page 1 of 2
When interacting with NON-scientists, NON-medical experts, or NON-healthcare professionals,

medical cannabis patients are considered second-class citizens or lepers or those "with a vice" and
disparaged, shamed, disrespected, belittled and punished.
This is inhumane discrimination based on ignorance, bigotry, irrational fears and years of
Institutional Racism.
The intent of “drug-free” workplace policies and related Hawai’i statute is to nurture an
employment setting where all employees adhere to a program of protocols and activities designed to
provide a safe workplace, discourage alcohol and drug abuse, and encourage treatment, recovery and
the return to work of those employees with such abuse problems.
SB 64 does not accomplish these goals.
Another solution would be to divide employees into non-safety sensitive and safety sensitive
classifications within industry or companies. A third solution would be to remove (d) (20) Marijuana
and (g) (1) Tetrahydrocannabinols; meaning tetrahydrocannabinols naturally contained in a plant of
the genus Cannabis (cannabis plant) from §329-14 Schedule I, and reclassify as §329-18 Schedule III.
Although the federal government maintains medical cannabis to be illegal due to DEA Schedule I
designation, the United States and member European nations participating in the Commission for
Narcotic Drugs recently voted in favor (December 2020) of removing medical cannabis from the
category of world’s most dangerous drugs, i.e., DEA Schedule I type designations, based on
recommendation of the World Health Organization.
I have attached a comprehensive appendix (p12-p32) from a recently-released study by the Cato
Institute, “The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations: 2021 Update.” 1
Their simple conclusion is: “New research finds that the strong claims made by both advocates and
critics of state-level marijuana legalization are substantially overstated and in some cases entirely
without real-world support.”
The history of cannabis in the U.S. since the early 1900s has been defined by extremism, alarmists
and racially-motivated actors. Isn’t it time for us to return to a scientifically-driven, evidenced-based
and rational policy making.
Thank you for your time,
\s\ Scott Goold \s\

Scott Goold
Honolulu, HI 96815
1 https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/effect-state-marijuana-legalizations-2021-update
Page 2 of 2
CARS: Community Addictions Recovery Specialist
CDC-sponsored and funded, University of New Mexico School of Medicine certification program
to battle the national opioid epidemic.
Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 19

Page 2 of 2
Change in Leadership at Hawaiian Electric 2018 to 2022
Entire executive management team directing HEI and subsidiary companies when Plaintiff
served in 2018-2019 replaced by 2022. Human Resources appears to have new leadership.
November 20, 2017 January 28, 2022
'imi pono ~ to strive to be righteous
Corporate Code of Conduct

November 20, 2017*
Dear Employees, Officers and Directors of the HEI Companies, Letter from the Presidents January 28, 2022*
Mahalo for your hard work and devotion to building a company of which we can all be proud. Dear Employees, Officers and Directors of the HEI Companies,
The reputation of the HEI companies and their traditions of excellence are a direct reflection and
result of your commitment to our company's core values and your integrity and efforts on the job Mahalo for your hard work and devotion to building a company of which we can all be proud.
The reputation of the HEI companies and their traditions of excellence are a direct reflection
and in the community.
and result of your commitment to our company’s core values and your integrity and efforts on
the job and in the community.
In addition to all of you, there are numerous stakeholders in our company, including our
shareholders, our customers, our vendors and suppliers and other members of the communities we In addition to all of you, there are numerous stakeholders in our company, including our share-
serve and call our home. Each of us has a responsibility to do our part in continuing to earn the trust holders, our customers, our vendors and suppliers and other members of the communities
and confidence that these various stakeholders have placed in us by operating in accordance with we serve and call our home. Each of us has a responsibility to do our part in continuing to
the highest standards of business conduct and ethics. earn the trust and confidence that these various stakeholders have placed in us by operating
2 in accordance with the highest standards of business conduct and ethics. As a company, we
Our Corporate of Code of Conduct describes our company's core values, which are the are focused on working collaboratively with our communities to create a path toward a more
fundamental principles that guide the conduct of our business. Everyone to whom our Code applies sustainable future—to strengthen our state’s economy, improve the well-being and resilience of
must take the time to read, understand and apply the provisions of our Code and report any our communities and protect Hawai‘i’s extraordinary environment.
concerns. The Board of Directors and management also have a responsibility to maintain a company Our Corporate of Code of Conduct describes our company’s core values, which are the funda-
culture based on integrity and compliance with all laws and an environment in which everyone can mental principles that guide the conduct of our business. Everyone to whom our Code applies
feel comfortable raising questions and concerns without fear of retaliation. We also encourage you must take the time to read, understand and apply the provisions of our Code and report any
to let us know if you have any suggestions for improving our Code and our efforts to promote an concerns. The Board of Directors and management also have a responsibility to maintain a
ethical culture for our company in which we strive to be righteous. company culture based on integrity and compliance with all laws and an environment in which
everyone can feel comfortable raising questions and concerns without fear of retaliation. We
Thank you for your dedication and commitment to carrying out our company's core values also encourage you to let us know if you have any suggestions for improving our Code and our
and contributing to the success of the HEI companies. efforts to promote an ethical culture for our company in which we strive to be righteous.
Thank you for your dedication and commitment to carrying out our company’s core values and
contributing to the success of the HEI companies.
Constance H. Lau
HEI President and Alan M. Oshima Richard F. Wacker
Jeffrey N. Watanabe Chief Executive Officer, HECO President and ASB President and
HEI Chairman of the Board ASB and HECO Chairman of the Board Chief Executive Officer Chief Executive Officer
Adm. Thomas B. Fargo Scott W.H. Seu Shelee M.T. Kimura Ann C. Teranishi Scott A. Valentino
*Note: This Code of Conduct is identical to the version dated May 19, 2017 other than to reflect ASB compliance officer changes. HEI Chairman HEI President and Hawaiian Electric President and ASB President and Pacific Current
of the Board Chief Executive Officer, Chief Executive Officer Chief Executive Officer President
ASB Chairman of the Board
*Note: This Code of Conduct is identical to the version dated Nov. 29, 2021 other than the replacement of Constance H. Lau with Scott W.H. Seu
as HEI President and CEO and the replacement of Scott W.H. Seu with Shelee M.T. Kimura as Hawaiian Electric President and CEO.
Change in Human Resources Leadership
May 2019
Thao T. Tran, Senior Associate General Counsel
January 2022
Thao T. Tran, Director, Human Resources
EXHIBIT 20

Change in Corporate Code of Conduct at Hawaiian Electric 2018 to 2022
There have been numerous changes to HEI Corporate Code of Conduct since Defendants
terminated Plaintiff. Herein November 20, 2017 edition is contrasted to January 28, 2022
1. Confusion over definition of Employee-Employer Relationship with Thao Tran
[excerpt from Friday, May 3, 2019 12:16 PM email]

As mentioned in my previous phone conversation with you, the Company is discovering on a
regular basis Mr. Goold’s continued misrepresentation of, among others, our company’s
relationship with him, which was never an employer-employee relationship. Mr. Goold was
never an employee of the Company and was not terminated from our Company. The Company
has concerns with such misrepresentations.
Thank you,
Thao
THAO T. TRAN
Senior Associate General Counsel
November 20, 2017: Staff are employees

All Company directors, officers and employees (which for purposes of the Code includes all full-
time, part-time, contract and temporary employees) are required to abide by the Code and all
independent contractors are required to abide by the Code as if they are employees to the extent
that they are carrying out their duties with respect to the Company.
January 28, 2022: Staff are teammates

This Code applies to all board members, executive officers*, and employees, including part-time,
contract, temporary employees, vendors, suppliers, and independent contractors to the extent that
they are carrying out their duties with respect to any of the Companies (collectively
“teammates”) of Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. (“HEI”) and all of its subsidiaries …
2. Confusion over pre-employment screen of Contract Employees like Mr. Goold
November 20, 2017: Contract employees NOT pre-employment drug or alcohol screened
January 28, 2022: ALL teammates MUST submit to drug and alcohol screening
All teammates must pass a drug and alcohol screening test prior to employment. You may also be
required to submit to drug or alcohol testing randomly or if you are suspected of being under the
influence of drugs or alcohol.
EXHIBIT 21
1
3. Confusion over policy of alcohol and drug-free workplace

November 20, 2017: Outdated and Limited Scope
Reporting to work under the influence of alcohol or drugs, drinking alcoholic beverages (other
than as permitted at functions or events approved by your respective Company President),
possession or the unprescribed use or distribution of any controlled substance or illegal drug, or
any other illegal act which occurs on work premises (including any non-Company site where you
are performing work on behalf of the Company) or during your work hours (including meal
breaks or rest periods) or which interferes with work performance.*
January 28, 2022: Updated and Modernized

You are expected to report to work and remain free of the influence of illegal drugs or
intoxicants, including the inappropriate use of lawful medications. If you consume alcohol at a
Company-approved event, you are expected to behave appropriately, make responsible choices,
and otherwise comply with the terms of the Code of Conduct.
Possession or the unprescribed use or distribution of any controlled substance or illegal drug, or
any other illegal act, which occurs on work premises (including any non-Company site where
you are performing work on behalf of the Company) or during work hours (including meal
breaks or rest periods), is prohibited.
Difference Between Internal and External Applicants
Mr. Goold was an external applicant when he applied for the database administrator position in
July 2018 and interviewed for the position with HECO management days later.
In January 2019, he was an internal applicant when he applied for the data analyst position. He
sat at a HECO workstation, connected to an internal URL to apply for the position prior to the
position being available to external applicants, on company time, and at the direction of his
HECO supervisor.
Internal Candidates: How To Stand Out During Your Interview

By Indeed Editorial Team1
February 22, 2021
The primary difference between an internal and an external candidate is that an internal
candidate has an existing relationship with the company they are applying to while an external
candidate is new to the organization.
Internal candidates usually have to follow the same formal process as an external candidate of
applying and interviewing for the new role they are interested in.
Internal candidates may have a few advantages over external candidates, such as:
• Most companies allow internal candidates to apply to new positions before they post the
job for external candidates to find.
• An internal candidate usually knows the company's rules, policies and procedures better
than an external candidate.
• Internal candidates know the company's culture and how they fit into it and may already
have strong working relationships with others in the organization.
• The company's management and hiring teams know an internal candidate's work ethic,
job performance, strengths and areas of opportunity.
An employer's cost of marketing, screening, interviewing, onboarding and training may

be lower for internal candidates than it is for external candidates.
1 https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/internal-candidate
EXHIBIT 22
Page 1 of 2

Difference Between Internal and External Recruitment

Last updated on July 26, 2018 by Surbhi S2
There are two sources of supply of manpower; namely, internal and external recruitment. Internal
Recruitment is a process whereby the employees are recruited from within the organization while
external recruitment, is a process in which the recruitment is done using outside sources.
In internal recruitment, that personnel is called by the organization which is already on the
payroll.
[In this case, Mr. Goold was in practice on the HECO “payroll.” His supervisor turned in his
hours weekly. Although Plaintiff was paid by the contractor firm. HECO paid this cost along
with a contractor processing fee. This process is more expensive to ratepayers.]
Conversely, in external recruitment, the organization relies on sources like an open

advertisement, consultancy firms, employment exchange etc.
2 https://keydi erences.com/di erence-between-internal-and-external-recruitment.html
Page 2 of 2
ff
ff

Office of Disciplinary Counsel

Complaint Form ODC use only:
Date Rcvd:_____________________
[ODC form 1 (4/12/2019)]
Case No: ____________________
Note: this complaint must be submitted on paper and signed, in Clerk: ___________
ink, by the complainant. ODC does not accept on line submissions.
If you need more space, please attach additional pages. Please only provide copies – not
originals – of your documents.
Date of this complaint: 8.26.19
Your Name: Scott Goold

Your Mailing Address
City: Honolulu , State: H I , Zip Code: 96815
Your telephone numbers:

preferred:
alternate:
Who are you complaining against? (up to two attorneys if all in the same firm.)
Attorney #1 Attorney #2
Attorney Name: Thao Tran Susan Li
Law firm name (if any): Attorney #3: Constance Hee Lau
Firm or Office Address: Hawaiian Electric Industries
Tele. No.: 808.543.4644 (808) 265-4753
NOTE: If the attorneys work in separate firms, you must file separate complaints.
(optional) Size of the law firm complained about:

1 attorney 2-10 attorneys 11+ attorneys Government Agency Unknown
Have you or a member of your family complained about the attorney(s) previously?
Yes [approximate date of prior complaint: ]
No
Did you employ the attorney(s)?

Yes [date of hire: , amount paid: $ ]
No [briefly explain your connection with this attorney(s): Employer Attorneys ]
If your complaint is about a legal proceeding, provide:

Title of the case: Charge of Discrimination
Name of court or agency: Hawai'i Civil Rights Commission
Case number: 20793 37B-2019-00269
Approx. date filed: 8.21.19
Your role in the suit: Complaintant
[e.g., Plaintiff, Defendant, other]
EXHIBIT 23
What did you hire or want the attorney to do?
Engage employees and public in good faith and competent, ethical legal behavior
Your complaint against this attorney: State what the attorney did or failed to do which is the
basis of your complaint. State the facts as you understand them. Do not include opinions or
arguments.
SEE ATTACHED FIVE PAGES OF FIVE REGARDING:
1. Thao T. Tran, Sr. Associate General Counsel

2. Susan Li, Sr. Vice President, General Counsel, Chief Compliance & Administrative Officer & Corporate Secretary
3. Constance Hee Lau, CEO & President, attorney
Hawaiian Electric Industries
✔ Additional pages? (Do not send original documents! Documents will not be returned.)
Identify any witness (provide name and contact info.) who might back up your complaint:
Witness 1: Joseph T Rosenbaum, Esq., Fujiwara & Rosenbaum, LLLC
Witness 2:
Witness 3:
Your signature: _______________________________ (sign in ink - must be signed).
Date signed: ___________________________
Mail to: Office of Disciplinary Counsel

Complaint Processing Dept.
201 Merchant Street, Suite 1600
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
Complaint Processing Dept.
201 Merchant Street, Suite 1600
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
August 26, 2019
RE: Office of Disciplinary Counsel Complaint Form
ATTACHMENT: Your complaint against this attorney: State what the attorney did or failed to do which is the
basis of your complaint. State the facts as you understand them. Do not include opinions or arguments.
I. BACKGROUND
Hawaiian Electric Industries is corporate parent of Hawaiian Electric Company, Maui
Electric Company, Hawai’i Electric Light Company and American Savings Bank.
1. Hired by Hawaiian Electric Company [HECO] as contract employee August 13, 2018.
2. Received Hawaiian Electric Industry [HEI] Code of Conduct about August 13,2018.
3. Mr. Goold is legal, medical cannabis patient authorized by State of Hawai’i Department of
Health. He is also legal, medical cannabis patient authorized by State of New Mexico Department
of Health.
4. Relevant Alcohol, drug and illicit substance HEI Code of Conduct written by HEI attorneys:
CEO Constance Hee Lau; Thao T. Tran, Sr. Associate General Counsel; Susan Li, Sr. Vice President,
General Counsel, Chief Compliance & Administrative Officer & Corporate Secretary
5. Relevant FairDealing HEI Code of Conduct written by HEI attorneys: CEO Constance Hee Lau;
Thao T. Tran, Sr. Associate General Counsel; Susan Li, Sr. Vice President, General Counsel, Chief
Compliance & Administrative Officer & Corporate Secretary.
Page 1 of 5
6. Relevant Values of HEI and HECO written by HEI attorneys: CEO Constance Hee Lau; Thao T.
Tran, Sr. Associate General Counsel; Susan Li, Sr. Vice President, General Counsel, Chief
Compliance & Administrative Officer & Corporate Secretary.
7. Relevant HEI and HECO Corporate Code of Conduct philosophy ‘imi pono — strive to be
righteous — written by HEI attorneys: CEO Constance Hee Lau; Thao T. Tran, Sr. Associate
General Counsel; Susan Li, Sr. Vice President, General Counsel, Chief Compliance &
Administrative Officer & Corporate Secretary.
Page 2 of 5

II. HISTORY
8. HEI/ HECO did not require Mr. Goold submit to pre-employment drug screen prior to hire
August 13, 2018. HEI does not require 100s of contract employees to submit to pre-employment or
employment drug screen.
9. HECO valued Goold performance. Extended my contract December 2018 until July 31, 2019.
10. HECO valued Goold performance. Offered me opportunity to apply internal position January
2019.
11. HECO valued Goold performance. Selected me for internal position conditionally February 11,
2019. Required to pass background check and pre-employment drug screen.
12. HEI and HECO failed to provide any written or verbal information about alleged corporate
policy restricting or prohibiting use of legal, prescribed medical cannabis.
13. Discussion with HECO HR director Shana Buco February 27, 2019. Stated she has never seen
any written information or policy about alleged corporate restriction or prohibition of use of legal,
prescribed medical cannabis. Ms. Buco has been with corporation over seven years.
14. Discussion with HECO HR rep Elizabeth “Liz” Deer February 14, 2019. Disclosed mobility
disability and related legal, prescribed DOH medical cannabis authorization for chronic pain. Ms.
Deer thanked Mr. Goold for being “pro-active” and stated he would “be fine.” Requested Mr. Goold
provide copy DOH “329” card to HR office at future time.
15. Submitted to corporate required URINE drug screen at Straub Clinic February 14, 2019.
Informed technician of legal, prescribed medical cannabis use.
16. About February 18, 2019, received confirmation from Straub Clinic drug screen showed active
for cannabis. Informed clinic had reported results to HECO HR.
17. February 20, 2019, received phone call from Herman Lau, HECO IT Security, disclosing HECO
HR had approved Goold official internal employment. Official first day would be February 25, 2019.
18. February 25, 2019, received phone call from Shana Buco, terminating my employment with
HECO per HEI corporate restriction on medical cannabis. Buco claimed drug screen showed Mr.
Goold was intoxicated and impaired in workplace; that he was danger to coworkers, company and
general public; and that he was engaged in criminal behavior.
19. February 25, 2019, asked Shana Buco to speak with HEI corporate legal team. She denied Mr.
Goold’s request.
20. HEI required pre-employment URINE drug screen measures THC-COOH metabolites. This
does not assess impairment or intoxication — just past use.
21. February 27, 2019, received phone call from Shana Buco. Ms. Buco reaffirmed claim drug screen
showed Mr. Goold was intoxicated and impaired in workplace; that he was danger to coworkers,
company and general public; and that he was engaged in criminal behavior. Mr. Goold asked to
speak with HEI corporate legal team. Ms. Buco said she would relay request but would not promise.
Page 3 of 5
22. February 27, 2019 at 2:06PM, forwarded Memorialized transcript of earlier conversation. SEE
Exhibit 1.
23. HEI attorneys refused to speak with Mr. Goold by email, phone or in-person.
24. Forced to hire attorney, Joseph T. Rosenbaum, to open conversation

with HEI attorneys.
25. April 12, 2019, HEI attorneys respond to Rosenbaum demand letter. SEE Exhibit 2.
a. HEI attorneys state (p1), “Mr. Goold did not pass his drug test.” False. Per HEI Code of
Conduct, Goold medication was legal and prescribed. HEI allows opioid medication.
b. HEI attorneys state (p1), ‘We questioned the validity of Mr. Goold’s assertion that he informed
the Company’s HR Service Center Representative, Ms. Elizabeth Deer, of his disability and his
use of cannabis for his disability prior to his drug test.” Non-denial denial, unethical. Ms. Deer
does not deny our conversation.
c. HEI attorneys state (p1-2), “auguendo, that Mr. Goold did tell Ms. Deer of his asserted disability
… It is undisputed that Hawaiian Electric was not aware of Mr. Goold’s asserted disability and
related medical issues at any time before the decision to rescind was made.” Ms. Deer is
Hawaiian Electric. Legal malpractice, unethical, violation of good faith.
d. HEI attorneys state (p1-2), “Mr. Goold admitted that Ms. Deer did not inform ‘her superiors,
including Ms. Buco.’” Mr. Goold did not admit anything. Hearsay.
e. HEI attorneys state, (p2), “Mr. Goold, therefore, was not discriminated against because of his
asserted disability.” Unethical and bad faith conclusion.
26. HEI terminates negotiations May 3, 2019.
From: Tran, Thao <thao.tran@hawaiianelectric.com>

Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 12:16 PM
To: 'Joseph T. Rosenbaum' <jtr@frlawhi.com>
Cc: 'Christina Michailidis' <ejfujiwara.paralegal@gmail.com>; 'Elizabeth Jubin Fujiwara'
<ejf@frlawhi.com>
Subject: RE: Scott Goold
Hi Joe:
Thank you for your email and the proposed counteroffer. This is to inform you that we
reject your counteroffer and, as you know, our offer is off the table as the deadline to
respond to that offer has passed.
As mentioned in my previous phone conversation with you, the Company is discovering on

a regular basis Mr. Goold’s continued misrepresentation of, among others, our company’s
relationship with him, which was never an employer-employee relationship. Mr. Goold was
never an employee of the Company and was not terminated from our Company. The
Company has concerns with such misrepresentations.
Thank you,
Thao
THAO T. TRAN
Page 4 of 5
Senior Associate General Counsel

Hawaiian Electric
PO Box 2750 / Honolulu, HI 96840
O: 808.543.4644
E: thao.tran@hawaiianelectric.com
27. HEI terminated negotiators in part claiming falsely Mr. Goold spoke untruthfully.
“Mr. Goold was never an employee of the Company and was not terminated from our
Company. The Company has concerns with such misrepresentations.”
28. Attorney for Mr. Goold in March 25, 2019, Demand Letter wrote. SEE Exhibit 3.
RE: HECO’s Wrongful Denial of Employment and Termination of Disabled Employee

Scott Goold
Mr. Goold’s attorney stated he was “terminated.’ HEI attorneys did not object.
29. Mr. Goold sends via email and Certified Letter July 24, 2019, to HEI attorneys announcing pro se
status and requesting to meet. SEE Exhibit 4. HEI attorney refused to acknowledge or respond.
30. Mr. Goold emails “anniversary memo” to HECO team on about August 14, 2019. Receives auto-
response from HEI attorney Thao Tran:
Aloha:
Thank you for your email. I'm currently out of the office. I will respond to you upon my
return to the office. If you need more immediate assistance, please call my cell at (808)
265-4753 or email me. I will be checking email occasionally.
Thank you.
31. Mr. Goold contacts Ms. Tran August 15, 2019 about 8:45AM at phone number provided
previous day. Ms. Tran tells Mr. Goold she has family emergency and cannot speak at length. Asks
Mr. Goold for his phone number and promises to return his call. Ms. Tran never returned his call.
32. HCRC filed Charge of Discrimination against HEI August 21, 2019. SEE Exhibit 5.
• Mr. Goold claims HEI attorneys failed to provide ethical, competent policy information to
prospective employees, contracted employees and internal employees.
•
• Mr. Goold claims HEI attorneys failed to engage him in good faith, ethical behavior and have
violated legal practice requirements.
•
• Mr. Goold claims HEI attorneys failed to respect his pro se status ethically and as professional
requirements demand.
Scott Goold
Honolulu, HI 96815
Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT 1: Goold Phone Call Transcript February 27, 2019

From: Scott Goold
Subject: Conversation with HECO HR Today
Date: February 27, 2019 at 2:06 PM
To: shana.buco@hawaiianelectric.com, Yafuso, Lori lori.yafuso@hawaiianelectric.com
Cc:
Hi Lori and Shana,

I received a call from Shana today and wanted to memorialize our conversation. I really appreciate Shana’s time this
morning. We spoke for over an hour. As always, she was kind, professional and gracious. Thank you, Shana!
I realize this situation is frustrating to all of us. We wanted and hoped to continue working together. The events of
February 25th, the day of the untimely termination, was confusing and difficult for all of us. As I mentioned, I was
shocked and blindsided. I had no knowledge my pain medication created a problem for HECO.
As a contractor, I did not have full access to HR or personnel pages. HECO provided me simply with Code of Conduct
(Code). The Code is clear. Employees are prohibited from using “illegal” or “unprescribed” drugs. As the State of
Hawai’i, and my former location, State of New Mexico, considers medical cannabis to be both legal and prescribed. I
was unaware this medication would interfere with my path toward HECO employment. Other companies have tested
me. As a medical cannabis patient, they ignored the positive results for cannabis. Employers told me my situation was a
HIPPA issue and not a concern for their internal IT workgroups. Frankly, most companies and law enforcement are
concerned today with meth, cocaine and opioids.
ONE
Prior to the drug screen, I notified HR about my profile. This is how I acted in previous situations with employers. I
informed Ms. Deer of my legal DOH permit and that I was active on cannabis. She did not raise an objection or warn me
medical cannabis was prohibited. Shana told me Ms. Deer was not tasked to do anything but arrange the test.
This creates a legal dilemma. Ms. Deer is an agent of HECO. HECO allegedly considers both cannabis and medical
cannabis to be illegal substances. I admitted alleged “illegal” activity to HR. Apparently, Ms. Deer did nothing. Shana
informed me Ms. Deer did not relay the information to her. This might be a violation of the Code. Ms. Deer is required by
the Code to “report immediately” any suspected violation.
When I met with staff at Straub testing, I informed them of my active and legal medical cannabis use. When Dr. Kasuka
(sp) called and spoke with me, I informed him of my active and legal medical cannabis use. I do not hide this, although I
am discreet. I don’t discuss my medications casually. I am open and transparent when the situation warrants disclosure.
TWO
I asked Shana why HECO considers medical cannabis to be illegal. She agreed with me the State of Hawai’i permits
legal use. She said HECO’s concern was the federal position. We agreed the FDA continues cannabis as a Schedule I
drug. Yet I pointed out during the Obama administration, the DOJ officially stated the federal government would NOT
intervene or interfere with state policy, unless the federal government found the state to be irresponsible. The federal
government considers Hawaii’s medical cannabis program to be responsible.
Similar to President Clinton’s evolution on gay lifestyle in the military, President Obama established a “don’t ask, don’t
tell” type policy framework around medical cannabis. Attorney General Jeff Sessions of the Trump administration
suggested he would overturn this policy. He didn’t during his tenure. Newly appointed AG William Pelham Barr has
indicated his DOJ would continue Obama administration policy regarding medical cannabis.
For the most part today, across the nation, nobody appears concerned about medical cannabis. We are far more
alarmed about the deadly opioid prescription drug epidemic that leads to the tragic death of some 150 Americans each
day. I was certified in 2009 to educate community groups about opioid addiction, overdose and use. There is a
PowerPoint presentation on my LinkedIn account from 2010-11 where I discuss this important topic. As a PhD
researcher in illicit and illegal drugs, I have refused opioid pain analgesics for my numerous surgeries. The risk is simply
too great. I am unable to take many of the available alternatives for medical reasons. The best option was medical
cannabis.
cannabis.
THREE
Aware of the trending acceptance of medical cannabis, and reading HECO code, I had no indication my medication
would be problematic. I asked Shana why HECO didn’t specifically state in the Code medical cannabis wasn’t permitted.
The lack of clarity causes confusion.
Second, I asked Shana about any written HECO policy regarding medical cannabis. She told me honestly, to the best of
her knowledge, as of Feb. 27th, she never remembers seeing anything in HECO documentation about medical
cannabis. She explained the policy was transmitted verbally through legal and HR ranks. This creates a legal dilemma
as well. Medical cannabis is a serious issue. Serious policy decisions should be in writing.
FOUR
Absent clear policy, HECO created confusion about their standards. As a trained professional in pain medication, I had
no reason to believe my behavior might be in violation of company policy. I am being penalized for doing something I
believed was legal and permitted. HECO must accept responsibly to fully and completely inform employees of their
standards. Failure to do so may be considered “arbitrary and capricious” policy, although I’m not an attorney.
HECO does not drug test contractors and HECO relies on many contractors. If cannabis or other drugs are such a
concern, why aren’t contractors held to similar standards? This does not make logical sense. I’ve been on this
medication since I started with HECO. Why was my position as a contractor terminated as well? HECO didn’t believe I
posed a threat on Day 1; why do they on Day 181?
Near the end of our conversation, I asked Shana why she didn’t immediately remove me from duty when I notified Ms.
Deer of my active cannabis use. HECO allegedly believes medical cannabis users pose a threat, a risk to safety and
security, yet I was allowed to continue working for about two more weeks. Shana said she wasn’t informed and didn’t
want to be held accountable for something of which she had not been informed. EXACTLY!!!
Righteous people don’t punish each other when the person wasn't properly and reasonably informed. I had taken
measured steps to be legal. Patients pay money out-of-pocket to be in the program. There are many regulatory hurdles.
I made an active, informed and conscientious decision to ensure my behavior was legal.
FIVE
I asked about applying for the position, Database Administrator, 3342, posted on 02/25/2019. Shana told me I had
already applied, and since it’s the same position, I cannot apply again. She said I'm still listed in the applicant pool, but
disqualified due to the drug screen results. In sum, HECO will not consider me for this opportunity, as it’s the same job.
The job is different. The previous was Database Analyst, I believe. Lori mentioned the title didn’t seem accurate. The
position has officially changed in name.
Shana also said HECO policy does not allow me to be retested for the drug screen. Essentially, HECO will not allow me
to be considered for employment going forward. This seems to be a form of Double Jeopardy. HECO considers medical
cannabis use to be illegal. People who do illegal activities are criminals. Thus, by rules of transitive logic, HECO
considers Scott Goold to be a criminal. For example:
• A=B
• B=C
• Therefore, A = C
I’m not a criminal. A court of law generally does not punish someone for a crime if the person reasonably believed they
were engaged in legal behavior. Why then does HECO punish me?
SIX
I’m an imperfect human being. We’re all imperfect. HECO likewise isn’t a perfect company. I am sorry for this situation. I
ask HECO to be sorry as well. We have an amazing relationship. We are doing excellent work. We make an awesome
team and we have much work to do going forward together.
Ms. Deer may have made a mistake. Shana may have made mistakes. I may have made mistakes. The legal team may
have made mistakes. We could sort this out litigiously in a hostile environment. I don’t believe this is the preferred
choice by any of us. This isn’t aloha. This isn’t the Hawaiian way.
Concluding by phone with Shana today, I asked for a meeting. I adore the Hawaiian tradition of ho’oponopono. What a
sophisticated means of dispute resolution! There is no wise reason to break up this team. This minor issue can be easily
resolved if we have the will to meet and talk with each other.
This is an amazing company staffed by tremendously talented and dedicated people. Please allow our greatness to
shine at this challenging time. This situation offers us an opportunity to reveal our true character!
Aloha and mahalo!

Aloha and mahalo!
ps — although I took notes, I did not record my conversation with Shana. She told me she didn’t record our conversation
either. I’ve done my best to accurately report what we discussed. I apologize in advance if I’ve misstated anything said
by Shana. Please feel free to correct the record if my recollection or perception is flawed.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Scott Goold
"I Can't Accept Not Trying"
EXHIBIT 2: HEI April 12, 2019 Response to Goold Demand
Letter
EXHIBIT 3: March 25, 2019 Goold Demand Letter
EXHIBIT 4: Goold Pro Se Certified Letter of July 24, 2019
Sent Via email and USPS Priority Mail for Delivery Confirmation Purposes
July 24, 2019
Constance Hee Lau

President and CEO, Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc.
1001 Bishop St., Ste 2900
Alan M. Oshima
Chairman, President and CEO, Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.
1001 Bishop St., Ste 2900
RE: Wrongful Denial of Employment and Termination of Disabled Employee Scott Goold
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. and Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. [herein HEI] wrongfully
denied Scott Goold employment and wrongfully terminated Scott Goold on February 25, 2019.
HEI has refused to communicate directly with Mr. Scott Goold since February 27, 2019. This forced
Mr. Goold to hire expensive attorneys from Fujiwara & Rosenbaum, LLLC [herein attorneys].
Mr. Goold thereby represents himself pro se in a final attempt to achieve an amicable and just
resolution to his minor conflict.
They are committed to resolving this matter at the lowest level possible, but are
willing to hire an expert legal team if needed.
Mr. Goold was terminated unjustly for his use of medical cannabis. Mr. Goold is a member of over
26,000+ patients in Hawai’i who have a legal and prescribed license to use medical cannabis. Mr.
Goold recognizes HEI might be confused about the latest science in this matter. HEI policy would
have allowed Mr. Goold to use a prescribed legal opioid medication. This is neither reasonable nor
rational corporate behavior.
Tens of thousands of deaths are linked to opioid use. The State of Hawai’i now sues the Sackler
family and Purdue Pharma due to their alleged role in the national opioid epidemic. Mr. Goold is
highly trained in opioid addiction and pain management through the University of New Mexico
School of Medicine. When offered opioids or cannabis to manage his long-term chronic pain, Mr.
Goold’s scientific and medical background led him to select medical cannabis.
In HEI’s letter RE Scott Goold to attorneys on April 12, 2019, Thao T. Tran, Sr. Associate General
Counsel, wrote, “Hawaiian Electric maintains a drug-free workplace policy.” This is inconsistent
with HEI action and information available to employees and prospective candidates.
Page 1 of 5
HEI recruited Mr. Goold though Edgerock Technologies. HEI never informed Mr. Goold of a
medical cannabis prohibition. Mr. Goold started with HEI on August 13, 2019. HEI never informed
Mr. Goold of a medical cannabis prohibition. HEI policy does not state this. Instead, it suggests
medical cannabis would be permitted — as Mr. Goold has a legal and prescribed authorization to
use this medication, which the State of Hawai’i legalized in 2000. (See below. Emphasis in RED)
HEI extended Mr. Goold’s contract through the end of July 2019 on about December 2018. HEI
did not inform Mr. Goold of a medical cannabis prohibition. In January 2019, an internal position
opened. HEI encouraged Mr. Goold to apply. HEI confirmed his work was outstanding and his
behavior exemplary — although Mr. Goold had been a medical cannabis patient since his start in
August.
In February, HEI informed Mr. Goold he has been selected for the open position conditionally. Mr.
Goold successfully passed the background screening process. HEI still had not informed Mr. Goold
the company had an alleged medical cannabis restriction.
On February 14, 2019, HEI HR rep Liz Deer contacted Mr. Goold about the pre-employment drug
screen process by phone. Mr. Goold was not in a private setting. His medical history is HIPAA-
protected. After the their phone call, Mr. Goold emailed Ms. Deer asking for her phone number so
he could call her privately. Ms. Deer emailed Mr. Goold her phone number. Mr. Goold went to a
small office, closed the door, and called Ms. Deer using his personal cell phone. They had a three
minute conversation about 9:45AM on February 14, 2019.
Mr. Goold will testify under oath he informed HEI HR rep Ms. Deer of his disability and use of
legal medical cannabis. He will testify he offered to bring his DOH “329” license so HEI HR could
copy for their files. He will testify Ms. Deer thanked him for being proactive and said this would be
fine.
About February 20, 2019, Mr. Goold received a phone call from IT Security, Herman Lau. Mr. Lau
informed Mr. Goold he had spoken with HEI HR and confirmed his official start date would be
February 25, 2019. Mr. Goold informed coworkers and family he had been hired. Mr. Goold’s wife
will testify the two celebrated dinner that evening due to the good news.
Page 2 of 5
On February 25, 2019, Mr. Goold received a phone call from HEI HR rep Shana Buco. She
informed him his drug screen showed positive cannabis. Mr. Goold did not deny this. He said he
expected this. Mr. Goold will testify HEI HR rep Buco claimed he was intoxicated in the workplace;
that he presented a danger to coworkers, the company and the general public; and that Mr. Goold
was engaged in illegal activity. A standard urine screen does not establish this. It can only measure
past substance use — THC-COOH. HEI does not use the more sophisticated DOT assessment that
measures Delta 9 THC, which is the active and intoxicating component.
HEI HR rep Buco informed him HEI had withdrawn the offer of employment and demanded Mr.
Goold clear his desk, exit the building immediately, and never return. Mr. Goold sought his manager,
Lori Yafuso. Mr. Goold will testify she informed him HEI HR rep Buco told her similarly. Ms.
Yafuso requested his employee ID badge and urged him to depart as soon as possible. Mr. Goold
has not returned.
On February 25, 2019, HEI informed Mr. Goold for the first time medical cannabis was not
permitted. HEI does not test contract employees at all. Mr. Goold, as a contracted employee, was
not considered to be a danger to coworkers, the company or general public due to possible cannabis
or any illicit substance use. HEI policy is deceptive and misleading. HEI pretends to protect
company employees, the company and general public. They hire hundreds of contracted employees
— sometimes for years. They do not drug screen these workers.
As an internal employee, although sitting in the same desk, using the same computers, engaged in
the same assignments, on the same team, HEI denied Mr. Goold the legal use of medical cannabis,
although he had not presented any danger to the company, exhibited any signs of impairment or
intoxication in some six months of closely monitored work.
Mr. Goold is a “non-safety sensitive” IT employee sitting in a backroom at a desk. He did not
medicate prior to or during work hours. This is not disputed.
On February 27, 2019, Mr. Goold will testify HEI HR rep Buco informed him she had never seen
any written policy, training information, corporate memos or literature, or received any advanced
training on the topic of medical cannabis. She said she only knew of the policy due to casual verbal
conversation around her office. It is highly possibly HEI HR rep Ms. Deer had never been trained
about the issue of medical cannabis.
In Ms. Tran’s letter of April 12th, she wrote, “We questioned the validity of Mr. Goold’s assertion
that he informed the Company’s HR Service Center Representative, Ms. Elizabeth Deer, of his
disability and his use of cannabis for his disability prior to this drug test.” This is a weak response —
what negotiators call a “non-denial denial.” This will not stand in a formal legal proceeding before a
judge or jury.
Also in her letter of April 12th, Ms. Tran wrote, “Even if, assuming auguendo, that Mr. Goold did tell
Ms. Deer of his asserted disability … it is undisputed that Hawaiian Electric was not aware of Mr.
Goold’s asserted disability and related medical issues at any time before the decision to rescind was
made.”
Mr. Tran supports her statement, “Mr. Goold admitted that Ms. Deer did not ‘inform her superiors,
including Ms. Buco,’ the Company’s HR Business Partner, of his medical use of cannabis.”
Page 3 of 5
This is a false representation. Mr. Goold only knows of this due to what HEI HR rep Buco stated
to him. Mr. Goold does not know what HEI HR rep Deer did with the information he disclosed to
her in private. Nevertheless, this does not relieve HEI of their corporate responsibility.
Mr. Goold informed a HEI representative he believed the company tasked to manage the drug
screen process. Possibly HEI failed to train their employee professionally and competently. A judge
and/or jury will likely not look favorably on HEI for this possible negligence.
Mr. Goold does not use medical cannabis at this time. Island leading expert informed Mr. Goold it
might take 6-9 months to clear the inert, non-intoxicating THC-COOH from his system. Mr. Goold
will testify he accomplished this feat in 33 days — putting himself thorough dangerous and rigorous
training, while suffering numerous painful injuries.
Mr. Goold was forced to the pavement by a motorist on March 28, 2019. He suffered a broken
pelvis, road-rash, lacerations, massive hematoma and bursa swelling due to the accident. He used
medical cannabis through April 11, 2019. He stopped immediately on April 12th due to the HEI
letter from Ms. Tran.
Mr. Goold has suffered the pain of his injuries without any medication at all — due to policy
confusion over medical cannabis and medical concerns over alternative medications.
Mr. Goold is an experienced athlete and former Veteran. Both push through and are trained to
endure pain. Mr. Goold wants to be returned to his position and team. He suffers pain quietly and
heroically, as the mission is more important than his personal comfort or lack thereof.
Mr. Goold had respected and admired HEI CEO Connie Lau. He is unclear why she is treating him
so cruelly. Refusing to speak directly with him is unprofessional. Refusing to negotiate in good faith
is unethical.
On about May 3, 2019, Ms. Tran wrote to attorneys:
Thank you for your email and the proposed counteroffer. This is to inform you that we reject your
counteroffer and, as you know, our offer is off the table as the deadline to respond to that offer has passed.
As mentioned in my previous phone conversation with you, the Company is discovering on a regular basis
Mr. Goold’s continued misrepresentation of, among others, our company’s relationship with him, which was
never an employer-employee relationship. Mr. Goold was never an employee of the Company and was not
terminated from our Company. The Company has concerns with such misrepresentations.
“… was not terminated from our Company.” Attorneys in their letter of March 25, 2019, started
with a subject similar to the one listed in this letter:
RE: Wrongful Denial of Employment and Termination of Disabled Employee Scott Goold
Prior to May 3rd, Ms. Tran did not inform Mr. Goold, or attorneys to the best of his knowledge,
that a conflict over the perception of “termination” was an issue. Nowhere in her letter April 12th
does Ms. Tran take exception to the use of this word or phrasing.
Page 4 of 5
Mr. Goold requests an immediate in-person meeting with HEI CEO Lau or her representative. If
there is no response by Monday, July 29, 2019, at 4:00pm HST by either email or phone, Mr.
Goold will proceed with formal legal action.
If HEI forces this official step, Mr. Goold pledges he will not settle unless HEI admits full guilt in
this matter and he is allowed to publish the agreement in full. Otherwise Mr. Goold will be
committed financially and willing fully to take this matter to the conclusion of a jury trial — as over
26,000+ medical cannabis patients do not deserve to be treated as lepers in our community.
NOTE: Forwarded using email on July 24, 2019; mailed via USPS on July 25, 2019 due to
lateness of day and post office is currently closed.
Sincerely,
\s\ Scott Goold \s\

Scott Goold
Honolulu, HI 968145
email:
Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT 5: Charge of Discrimination August 21, 2019

STATE OF HAWAI’I

Plaintiff, )
) ORDER GRANTING EXCLUSION
vs. ) OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE
)
)
Defendants. )
)
ORDER GRANTING EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE
The Court, having considered Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to exclude certain evidence
from Specially Appearing Defendant Hawaiian Electric Co., Inc’s (“Defendants’s”) Motion to
Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed May 21, 2021 [Dkt. No. 32] as to all unserved parties;
arguments of counsel and party; and the records and documents filed herein; and good cause
appearing therefor;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED, and certain evidence shall be
excluded as follows:
1. Exclusion of the specified evidence marked as Defendants’s Exhibits 1-9, in part or
entirety as described:

A. Defendants's Exhibit 1: exclusion of Sections 5.0, 5.1, 5.2 and Section 6.2.
B. Defendants’s Exhibit 2: exclusion of Section 4.1
C. Defendants’s Exhibit 3: exclusion of this email in entirety
D. Defendants’s Exhibit 4: exclusion of this email in entirety
E. Defendants’s Exhibit 5: exclusion of this email in entirety
F. Defendants’s Exhibit 6: exclusion of this email in entirety
G. Defendants’s Exhibit 7: exclusion of this email in entirety
H. Defendants’s Exhibit 8: exclusion of this email in entirety
I. Defendants’s Exhibit 9: exclusion of this email in entirety
2) Defendants’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed May 21, 2021 [Dkt.
No. 32] appropriately amended;
3) Hearing on this matter initially scheduled March 3, 2022, 9:00 AM, be continued and
re-scheduled to allow all parities sufficient time to respond to the amended motion to dismiss.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai’i ______________________ , 2022.
JUDGE OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT
STATE OF HAWAI’I

Plaintiff, )
) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
vs. )
)
)
Defendants. )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this date, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document
was duly served upon the following parties via the means and on the date indicated below:
NAME(S) E-MAIL HAND JEFS

BY STIPULATION DELIVERY
RANDALL C. WHATTOFF !
800 Bethel Street, Suite 600
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813
rwhattoff@cfhawaii.com
Attorney for Specially Appearing

Defendant HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC

/s/ Scott Goold

JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD
PLAINTIFF PRO SE
Page 2 of 2

JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD

Electronically Filed
FIRST CIRCUIT
1CCV-21-0000216
08-FEB-2022
12:39 PM
Plaintiff
Dkt. 44 CS
STATE OF HAWAI’I

Plaintiff, )
) SECOND AMENDED
vs. ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
)
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, ) (RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN
INC.; HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC ) LIMINE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN
INDUSTRIES, INC.; ELIZABETH DEER; ) EVIDENCE FROM SPECIALLY
SHANA M. BUCO; JOHN DOES 1-10; ) APPEARING DEFENDANT
JANE DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS ) HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC CO., INC.’S
1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE ) MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST
ENTITIES 1-10; AND DOE ) AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, ) MAY 21, 2021 [DKT. NO. 32] et al)
)
) DATE: March 3, 2022
) TIME: 9:00 AM
Defendants. ) JUDGE: Honorable Dean E. Ochiai
)
SECOND AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 8, 2022, a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's
Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Evidence from Specially Appearing Defendant Hawaiian

Electric Co., Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Filed May 21, 2021 [Dkt. No.
32] as to All Unserved Parties; Memorandum in Support of Motion; Order Granting Exclusion of
Certain Evidence; and Certificate of Service, was duly served upon the following parties via the
means and indicated below:
NAME(S) E-MAIL HAND JEFS

BY STIPULATION DELIVERY
RANDALL C. WHATTOFF !
800 Bethel Street, Suite 600
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813
rwhattoff@cfhawaii.com
Attorney for Specially Appearing

Defendant HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC
/s/ Scott Goold

JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD
PLAINTIFF PRO SE
Page 2 of 2

Jeffrey Scott Goold Motion in Limine Against Hawaiian Electric

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jeffrey Scott Goold Motion in Limine Against Hawaiian Electric

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD, ) CIVIL NO. 1CCV-21-0000216

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN EVIDENCE FROM

and file herein.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai’i, February 8, 2022.

/s/ Scott Goold

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD, ) CIVIL NO. 1CCV-21-0000216

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

On February 25, 2019, Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. (“HECO”), a subsidiary of

Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. (“HEI”), (collectively “The Corporation” or “Defendants”),

Plaintiff served as an IT specialist, a database administrator and analyst, in a non-safety-

Administrative Rules (“HAR”) relative to Americans with disability.

amendment to HRS §329, specifically 125.5(b):

Plaintiff will demonstrate herein Defendants had no legal, operational or scientific

not fail the assessment.

policy Defendants made available to him.

The Corporation now claims they:

“prohibit ‘[a]ny possession of marijuana in any form . . . , or its use or presence in an

withheld admission of their failed obligation in their motion to dismiss.

As pointed out, HRS §329-125.5(b), incorporated 2015, defined medical cannabis

consenting to the drug assessment.

suffer this outrageous failure of leadership and training.

II. DEFLECTION IS WEAK DEFENSE

Goold. Defendants claim some of Plaintiff’s written complaints to government officials,

merit, “beyond harassment” and of “implied threats.”

Defendants Exhibit 2, Substance Abuse Policies and Procedures, Section 4.1).

Defendants have extracted portions of Plaintiff’s commentary out-of-context in a strategy

character evidence be excluded if the character evidence:

III. NON-CONFRONTATIONAL AND HARMONIOUS CULTURE

Evaluating individual behavior requires understanding of social constructs in the

obscenity. Words and actions must be viewed in proper context.

California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973):

• A thing must be completely devoid of scientific, political, educational or social value

emphasize nurturing non-confrontational and harmonious behavior.

his medication. Defendants cannot claim he was.

In addition, U.S. DOT regulations articulated since 2009 are unchallenged:

Defendants to this day continue confrontational behavior. Corporate Code demands

request for waiver. Their behavior is not harmonious.

extended him aloha.

IV. BACKGROUND OF PLAINTIFF

lacks competency in substance abuse education, continues outdated and racial-discriminatory

and supervisors. Plaintiff is not alone in criticism.

examples of bad management in his November 11, 2019 letter to HEI.

Similar to Plaintiff, Mr. Ubben demanded management reorganization, as the utility

updates, included as Exhibit 21.

management and change pubic policy.

V. REQUEST TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE PER RULE 403

A. Defendants’s Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Hawaiian Electric Company,

Sections 5.0, 5.1, 5.2 and Section 6.2.

B. Defendants’s Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from Hawaiian

1986, and revised August 1, 2015.

by Defendants, Plaintiff requests exclusion of Section 4.1.

cannabis (see Exhibit 12, #23-25).

cannabis in Hawai’i and requests exclusion of this email in entirety.

Mr. Goold is engaged in political action to correct an acknowledged public policy

the first Amendment. Plaintiff requests exclusion of this email in entirety.

and medical marijuana …”

intoxication — pushing us toward opioids.”

exclusion of this email in entirety.

Freedom Fighters.” Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard was Plaintiff’s representative.

H. Defendants’s Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of an e-mail from Plaintiff

media feed. He did not seek her information.