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.
[§378-69] Conflict with common law, precedence. The rights created herein shall not be construed to limit the development of the common law nor to preempt the common law rights and remedies on the subject matter of discharges which are contrary to public policy. In the event of a conflict between the terms and provisions of this part and any other law on the subject the more beneficial provisions favoring the employee shall prevail. [L 1987, c 267, pt of §1]
Case Notes
Mentioned: 654 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (2008).
Section: Previous 378-62 378-63 378-64 378-65 378-66 378-67 378-68 378-69 378-70 378-71 378-72 378-73 378-74 378-81 378-82 NextLast modified: October 27, 2016