Revision Note
In this part, "part" substituted for "chapter" pursuant to §23G-15.
Law Journals and Reviews
Wrongful Termination Law in Hawaii. V HBJ, no. 13, at 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).
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).
Portions of plaintiff's Whistleblowers' Protection Act claims based on the alleged sexual orientation statements and the complaint and investigation regarding plaintiff's alleged discrimination against two individuals were time-barred. 892 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (2012).
Protection afforded under this Act not restricted to at-will employees. 74 H. 235, 842 P.2d 634 (1992).
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.
§378-63 Civil actions for injunctive relief or damages. (a) A person who alleges a violation of this part may bring a civil action for appropriate injunctive relief, or actual damages, or both within two years after the occurrence of the alleged violation of this part.
(b) An action commenced pursuant to subsection (a) may be brought in the circuit court for the circuit where the alleged violation occurred, where the complainant resides, or where the person against whom the civil complaint is filed resides or has a principal place of business.
(c) As used in subsection (a), "damages" means damages for injury or loss caused by each violation of this part, including reasonable attorney fees. [L 1987, c 267, pt of §1; am L 2002, c 56, §3]
Case Notes
Plaintiff's state whistleblower claim under §378-62 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).
Plaintiff's Whistleblowers' Protection Act claim was time-barred, where plaintiff took more than two years after the date of the last adverse action that plaintiff identified as relevant to the lawsuit to file suit. 938 F. Supp. 2d 1000 (2013).
Section: Previous 378-35 378-36 378-37 378-38 378-51 378-61 378-62 378-63 378-64 378-65 378-66 378-67 378-68 378-69 378-70 NextLast modified: October 27, 2016