2013 Hawaii Revised Statutes
TITLE 21. LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
378. Employment Practices
378-62 Discharge of, threats to, or discrimination against employee for reporting violations of law.

Revision Note

In this part, "part" substituted for "chapter".

Law Journals and Reviews

Wrongful Termination Law in Hawaii. V HBJ 71 (2001).

Employee Rights Under Judicial Scrutiny: Prevalent Policy Discourse and the Hawai‘i Supreme Court. 14 UH L. Rev. 189 (1992).

Confidentiality Breeds Contempt: A First Amendment Challenge to Confidential Ethics Commission Proceedings of the City & County of Honolulu. 18 UH L. Rev. 797 (1996).

Case Notes

Respondent's claims for discharge in violation of public policy and in violation of the Hawaii Whistleblower [sic] Protection Act were not preempted by the Railway Labor Act. 512 U.S. 246 (1994).

Protection afforded under this Act not restricted to at-will employees. 74 H. 235, 842 P.2d 634.

Plaintiff's Hawaii Whistleblowers' Protection Act and Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc. claims were preempted by §1305(a)(1) of Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. 870 F. Supp. 295 (1994).

The Act does not provide employees with a protected property interest, as it does not create an enforceable expectation of continued public employment. 120 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (2000).

Plaintiff could not maintain the present action where plaintiff had agreed to "forever release, acquit, and discharge" the claims in the mutual release and settlement agreement in plaintiff's first action. 686 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (2010).

Where plaintiff was removed from project, State did not violate the Act or the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it reassigned the project to someone else. 76 H. 332, 876 P.2d 1300 (1994).

A. General Provisions

Note

Sections 378-61 to 378-69 designated as subpart A by L 2011, c 166, §3.

§378-62 Discharge of, threats to, or discrimination against employee for reporting violations of law. An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because:

(1) The employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report to the employer, or reports or is about to report to a public body, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of:

(A) A law, rule, ordinance, or regulation, adopted pursuant to law of this State, a political subdivision of this State, or the United States; or

(B) A contract executed by the State, a political subdivision of the State, or the United States,

unless the employee knows that the report is false; or

(2) An employee is requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry held by that public body, or a court action. [L 1987, c 267, pt of §1; am L 2002, c 56, §2]

Case Notes

Employee's wrongful termination action under Hawaii whistleblower's act preempted by ERISA whistleblower provision. 999 F.2d 408 (1993).

Because plaintiff did not have full and fair opportunity to litigate claims sounding in wrongful discharge in plaintiff's unemployment compensation benefits proceeding, the court refused to apply either issue preclusion or claim preclusion. 866 F. Supp. 459 (1994).

Because §378-2 and this section did not contain limitation periods, court invoked State's general personal injury statute of limitations, §657-7; plaintiff's state law claims barred where neither the collective bargaining proceedings nor the equal employment opportunity commission proceedings tolled the statute of limitations. 874 F. Supp. 1095 (1994).

Plaintiff's state whistleblower claim under this section barred, where plaintiff did not file complaint until well after the ninety-day period after the most recent alleged violation of the whistleblowers' protection act. 75 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (1999).

Count of complaint alleging that plaintiff was wrongfully discharged in violation of 31 U.S.C. §3730(h) of the False Claims Act was time-barred, where the court found that the Hawaii Whistleblowers' Protection Act provided the state cause of action most closely analogous to a 31 U.S.C. §3730(h) claim for retaliatory discharge, and thus applied a ninety-day statute of limitations to plaintiff's claim for retaliatory discharge. 362 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (2005).

Questions of material fact existed as to plaintiff's claim of retaliation in violation of the Hawaii Whistleblowers' Protection Act; the court found the fact that the adverse actions described occurred during the ongoing resolution of plaintiff's complaint sufficient to infer a causal connection between the two activities. 410 F. Supp. 2d 939 (2005).

Plaintiff failed to establish any issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff engaged in protected conduct by requesting compensation documentation or whether the conduct was a substantial motivating factor in defendants' retaliatory actions. 490 F. Supp. 2d 1062 (2007).

Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs' claim for violation of the Hawaii Whistleblowers' Protection Act denied, where issues of material fact existed as to defendant's motivation for removing and terminating plaintiffs; the government contractor defense did not apply in the case. 654 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (2008).