§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.



  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.



  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.



  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.



  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.



  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.



  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.