§378-62  Discharge of, threats to, ordiscrimination against employee for reporting violations of law.  Anemployer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against anemployee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, orprivileges of employment because:

(1)  The employee, or a person acting on behalf of theemployee, reports or is about to report to the employer, or reports or is aboutto report to a public body, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspectedviolation 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, apolitical subdivision of the State, or the United States,

unless the employee knows that the report isfalse; or

(2)  An employee is requested by a public body toparticipate 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 Hawaiiwhistleblower's act preempted by ERISA whistleblower provision.  999 F.2d 408.

  Because plaintiff did not have full and fair opportunity tolitigate claims sounding in wrongful discharge in plaintiff's unemploymentcompensation benefits proceeding, the court refused to apply either issuepreclusion or claim preclusion.  866 F. Supp. 459.

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

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

  Count of complaint alleging that plaintiff was wrongfullydischarged in violation of 31 U.S.C. §3730(h) of the False Claims Act wastime-barred, where the court found that the Hawaii Whistleblowers' ProtectionAct 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 statuteof limitations to plaintiff's claim for retaliatory discharge.  362 F. Supp. 2d1203.

  Questions of material fact existed as to plaintiff's claim ofretaliation in violation of the Hawaii whistleblowers' protection act; thecourt found the fact that the adverse actions described occurred during theongoing resolution of plaintiff's complaint sufficient to infer a causalconnection between the two activities.  410 F. Supp. 2d 939.

  Plaintiff failed to establish any issue of material fact asto whether plaintiff engaged in protected conduct by requesting compensationdocumentation or whether the conduct was a substantial motivating factor indefendants' retaliatory actions.  490 F. Supp. 2d 1062.