ST. CROIX — A longtime St. Croix firefighter has appealed after a federal judge rejected his claims that the Government of the Virgin Islands failed to properly accommodate his disability and subjected him to sexual harassment, disparate treatment and retaliation.
Arthur B. Canaii Jr. filed his appeal with the Third Circuit in September, weeks after the District Court of the Virgin Islands granted the government summary judgment and ended the case before trial. His opening appellate brief is due October 27.
Mr. Canaii, who began working for the government as a firefighter in 2007, sued in 2021 after a series of workplace disputes that began two years earlier. He alleged that Fire Service employees subjected him to demeaning and sexually charged comments, that he was retaliated against after filing an internal complaint, and that the government failed to properly accommodate severe sleep apnea.
The District Court ultimately found that the evidence did not support sending those claims to a jury.
On the disability issue, the court found that the government responded to Mr. Canaii’s medical restrictions by seeking additional information, obtaining a second medical opinion, placing him on leave and avoiding 24-hour shifts while his condition was evaluated. A medical review later recommended that he remain off 24-hour duty until he was compliant with CPAP treatment and that he be allowed to use the machine during sleep periods once he returned to full duty.
The judge concluded that the government had engaged in the required accommodation process and made good-faith efforts to address his condition. The court found no evidence that officials obstructed or delayed that process or ignored a necessary accommodation.
Mr. Canaii also argued that other firefighters had received light-duty assignments for disabilities while he had been treated differently. The court rejected that claim, finding that he had not produced sufficient evidence of a similarly situated employee receiving more favorable treatment.
His sexual-harassment case centered on comments and workplace conduct he said created a hostile environment. The court acknowledged that Mr. Canaii had been subjected to mocking and crude remarks but found insufficient evidence that the conduct occurred because he was male, a necessary element of a Title VII sex-discrimination claim.
The judge concluded that no reasonable jury could find intentional sex discrimination from the evidence presented and dismissed the hostile-work-environment claim.
The court reached a similar conclusion on retaliation. Mr. Canaii had filed an internal complaint alleging sexual harassment in October 2019 and was subsequently moved from the Arson Prevention Unit to the Suppression Unit while the complaint was investigated. He argued that the reassignment damaged his career path and promotional prospects.
But the judge found that the transfer did not amount to an adverse employment action. Mr. Canaii’s base pay remained unchanged, his shift differential increased, and the court found the Suppression Unit to be less dangerous than his previous assignment. The judge also found no evidence showing that an available promotion had been denied to him.
In granting summary judgment, the court said Mr. Canaii had not produced enough evidence to create a genuine factual dispute requiring a trial. The judge found that the government reasonably accommodated his disability, that the alleged harassment had not been shown to constitute discrimination because of sex, and that the evidence did not establish retaliation or disparate treatment.
The decision marked a significant reversal in a case that had survived an earlier attempt by the government to have it dismissed. In October 2024, the District Court allowed Mr. Canaii’s federal claims to proceed, finding that the Fire Service’s collective-bargaining grievance process did not prevent him from pursuing federal employment-discrimination claims in court.
That earlier ruling allowed the case to move into discovery but did not decide whether Mr. Canaii could ultimately prove his allegations. After the parties developed the evidentiary record, the government returned to court seeking summary judgment and prevailed.
Mr. Canaii has now asked the Third Circuit to review the outcome. The publicly available appellate record does not yet show which portions of the District Court’s ruling he intends to challenge, and his opening brief has not yet been filed. That filing, due October 27, should provide the first detailed account of the arguments he wants the appellate court to consider.
