MEMORANDUM OPINION (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Ann Sakaguchi appeals from the Final Judgment for the University of Hawai#i (UH) and Denise Konan, entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit.^[1] We hold: (1) Sakaguchi's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Law; (2) claims based on separate, distinguishable violations of the Hawai#i Whistleblowers' Protection Act (HWPA) that occurred over two years before she sued were time-barred, but claims for alleged violations that occurred within the two years before she sued, and her claims for pay differential and earning disparity beginning two years before she sued, were not time-barred; (3)(a) her claim for not being named department chair was not subject to NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

February 28, 2016 Retaliatory Claims" based on the statute of limitations and treating UH's statute of limitations defense as a jurisdictional issue; (3) entering summary judgment for failure to exhaust her remedies under the University of Hawai#i Professional Assembly collective bargaining agreements (CBAs); and (4) granting summary judgment on her post-February 28, 2016 HWPA claims.

III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Motion to Dismiss

Orders granting motions to dismiss are reviewed de novo. Kealoha v. Machado, 131 Hawai#i 62, 74, 315 P.3d 213, 225 (2013). We assume the facts alleged in the complaint are true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to see if they warrant relief under any legal theory. Id. We are not required to accept conclusions about the legal effect of the facts alleged, id., but we bear in mind that Hawai#i is a notice- pleading jurisdiction where legal theories need not be pleaded with precision, Bank of Am., N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 143 Hawai#i 249, 259, 428 P.3d 761, 771 (2018), overruled on other grounds by Wilmington Savs. Fund Soc'y v. Domingo, 155 Hawai#i 1, 556 P.3d 347 (2024).

B. Motion for Summary Judgment

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Ralston v. Yim, 129 Hawai#i 46, 55, 292 P.3d 1276, 1285 (2013). Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence shows there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. A fact is material if proof of that fact would establish or refute an essential element of a party's cause of action or defense. Id. at 55–56, 292 P.3d at 1285–86. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. at 56, 292 P.3d at 1286. "[F]indings of fact made by a trial court in relation to a summary judgment ruling are not binding on appeal, nor do NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

they alter our de novo standard of review regarding a summary judgment ruling." Hilo Bay Marina, LLC v. State, 156 Hawai#i 478, 487, 575 P.3d 568, 577 (2025).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Sakaguchi's IIED claim, which was not based on sexual harassment or sexual assault, was barred by HRS § 386-5.

Sakaguchi was employed by UH. UH moved to dismiss her IIED claim,4 arguing it was barred by the Hawai#i Workers Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision. The motion was filed under Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 12(b)(6) and presented no evidence outside the pleadings. Sakaguchi's opposition presented no evidence outside the pleadings. We disregard the declarations and exhibits attached to UH's reply memorandum. HRS § 386-5 (2015) provides:

The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee . . . on account of a work injury suffered by the employee shall exclude all other liability of the employer to the employee, . . . at common law or otherwise, on account of the injury, except for sexual harassment or sexual assault and infliction of emotional distress or invasion of privacy related thereto, in which case a civil action may also be brought.

(Emphasis added.) The supreme court has held:

Based on a plain reading, HRS § 386-5 unambiguously provides that claims for infliction of emotional distress . . . are not subject to the exclusivity provision when such claims arise from claims for sexual harassment or sexual assault, in which case a civil action may be brought. Inasmuch as [plaintiff] has alleged a claim for emotional distress, that does not arise out of sexual harassment or sexual assault, such claim is, pursuant to HRS § 386-5, barred.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawai#i 92, 109, 176 P.3d 91, 108 (2008) (bold italics added). Here, the allegations in Sakaguchi's amended complaint, viewed in the light most favorable to her, do not allege she was sexually harassed or sexually assaulted. Sakaguchi argues HRS § 386-5 does not bar her IIED claim because her amended complaint alleged she was discriminated against "after she complained about suspected Equal Pay Act violations[.]" She relies on Furukawa v. Honolulu Zoological Society, 85 Hawai#i 7, 936 P.2d 643 (1997) and Takaki v. Allied Machinery Corp., 87 Hawai#i 57, 951 P.2d 507 (App. 1998). The claims in Furukawa were for discriminatory employment practices in violation of HRS § 378-2 (Supp. 1996).5 The Hawai#i Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) has jurisdiction over claims under HRS § 378-2. See HRS § 378-4 (Supp. 1996 & 2015). The supreme court actually ruled: "The law is explicit that 'a workers' compensation claim or remedy does not bar relief on claims filed with the [HCRC].'" 85 Hawai#i at 19, 936 P.2d at 655 (quoting HRS § 368–17(b)). Sakaguchi's amended complaint does not allege that UH violated HRS § 378-2. Takaki also involved an alleged violation of HRS § 378-2. There, we held that "Furukawa would permit Takaki to maintain an action against Appellees for intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by terminating him in violation of HRS § 378–2." 87 Hawai#i at 68, 951 P.2d at 518.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Sakaguchi's amended complaint did not allege she was discriminated against in violation of HRS § 378-2. It alleged she was discriminated against, in violation of the HWPA, because she complained about UH violating the Equal Pay Act. Her IIED claim against UH was barred by HRS § 386-5.6 Kamaka, 117 Hawai#i at 109, 176 P.3d at 108.

B. The Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction over Sakaguchi's claims based on separate, distinguishable HWPA violations that occurred before February 28, 2016; her claims for pay differential and earning disparity after February 28, 2016 are not time-barred.

Sakaguchi filed her complaint on February 28, 2018. UH moved for summary judgment on the HWPA claims that accrued before February 28, 2016. UH relied on the HRS § 661-5 two-year statute of limitations. The Circuit Court treated the motion as one to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction,7 and granted it. Sakaguchi argues that the Circuit Court erred by basing its ruling on lack of jurisdiction, and that her claims for pre- February 28, 2016 discrimination were not time-barred under the continuing tort doctrine. HRS § 378-62 (2015) provides, in relevant part:

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 . . . 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(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[.]

The HWPA is a remedial statute, liberally construed to accomplish the purpose for which it was enacted. Crosby v. Dep't of Budget & Fin., 76 Hawai#i 332, 341–42, 876 P.2d 1300, 1309–10 (1994). Sakaguchi has the burden to prove she engaged in protected conduct, and that it was a "substantial or motivating factor" for UH engaging in prohibited conduct. Id. at 342, 876 P.2d at 1310. If she sustains her burden of proof, the "employer can defend affirmatively by showing that the [prohibited conduct] would have occurred regardless of the protected activity." Id.

(1) HRS § 661-5 imposes a jurisdictional limitation on the State's consent to be sued.

UH is a department of the State. HRS § 26-4(7) (2009). It is an "employer" under the HWPA. HRS § 378-61 (2015). The circuit courts have jurisdiction over HWPA claims against UH under HRS § 304A-108(a)8 (2007) and HRS § 661-1(1) (2016). "HRS § 661-1 . . . contains a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for claims against the State of Hawai#i that are founded upon a statute[.]" Garner v. State, 122 Hawai#i 150, 160, 223 P.3d 215, 225 (App. 2009). HRS § 661-5 (2016) provides, in relevant part:

Every claim against the State, cognizable under this part, shall be forever barred unless the action is commenced within two years after the claim first accrues[.]

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

An HWPA claim accrues when the employee knows or should have known, Blair v. Ing, 95 Hawai#i 247, 264, 21 P.3d 452, 469 (2001), that their employer has taken adverse action because of the employee's protected activity, Andrade v. County of Hawai#i, 145 Hawai#i 265, 277, 451 P.3d 1, 13 (App. 2019). The legislature did not consent to UH being sued for violating the HWPA over two years after the claim first accrued. The time bar is jurisdictional. Cf. Okutsu v. State, 153 Hawai#i 192, 196, 528 P.3d 956, 960 (App. 2023) (holding that State Tort Liability Act statute of limitations, HRS § 662-4 (2016), "is a term of the legislature's consent for the State to be sued in tort"). Thus, if a lawsuit alleging UH violated the HWPA is filed "more than two years after the claim accrued, state courts have no subject matter jurisdiction over the claim." Cf. id. at 199, 528 P.3d at 963.

(2) The Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction over HWPA claims based on separate, distinguishable violations that occurred before February 28, 2016.

Sakaguchi does not controvert that she knew, before February 28, 2016, that she was excluded from specific grant applications, funding opportunities, projects, meetings, conferences, legislative hearings, and initiatives. The Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction over the HWPA claims based on those alleged violations. The Circuit Court also lacked jurisdiction over Sakaguchi's claim based on Konan allegedly threatening to take away her project space and causing her computer servers to become intermittently inaccessible in 2015. The continuous tort doctrine does not apply to those claims under the circumstances of this case, because Sakaguchi alleged a series of separate, distinguishable violations by UH and Konan. See Boyd v. Univ. of Haw., No. 30547, 2012 WL 503797, at *3 (Haw. App. Feb. ^[13], 2012) (mem. op.) (holding that continuous tort doctrine did not apply where HWPA claimant alleged "a series of separate and distinguishable acts"), cert. rejected, No. SCWC-30547, 2012 WL 2026001 (Haw. June 4, 2012).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(3) Sakaguchi's claims for pay differential and earning disparity after February 28, 2016 are not time-barred. Sakaguchi's amended complaint alleged that her Department of Anthropology colleagues recommended she become department chair in February 2014, but Konan rejected the recommendation, which deprived her of a pay increase. Although the alleged HWPA violation occurred over two years before Sakaguchi sued UH, the statute of limitations for her periodic pay claim begins to run on each paycheck as it becomes due. Garner, 122 Hawai#i at 169, 223 P.3d at 234. Sakaguchi's claim for pay differential (for being wrongfully not selected department chair) before February 28, 2016 is barred by HRS § 661-5, but her claim for additional pay due from February 28, 2016 onward is not time-barred. Id. Sakaguchi's amended complaint also alleged: 37. Despite Dr. Sakaguchi's contributions, experience, and state, national and international recognition in her field, her earnings are near the bottom 10th percentile compared to similarly situated UHM faculty, who are paid at rates in the 75th percentile or higher. The claim for earnings disparity after February 28, 2016, caused by UH's violation of the HWPA is not time-barred. Garner, 122 Hawai#i at 169, 223 P.3d at 234. C. Sakaguchi's claim for not being named department chair was not subject to a CBA; her claim for earnings disparity was subject to a CBA but was actionable under HRS § 378-66. UH argued that Sakaguchi "fail[ed] to exhaust all administrative remedies with respect to submitting a request for pay increases for merit, equity or market as a Special Salary Adjustment ("SSA") pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between the University of Hawai#i Professional Assembly and the University of Hawai#i Board of Regents." Copies of the CBAs were appended to UH's motion for summary judgment.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

UH argues that Sakaguchi "could have submitted an SSA request if she sought an increase in her salary from the University based on merit and equity principles." But Sakaguchi's amended complaint did not allege she was entitled to, or wrongfully deprived of, an SSA based on merit, equity, or market. Her claim for back- and front-pay was made under HRS § 378-64, as a remedy for Konan wrongfully rejecting her colleagues' recommendation she be named department chair. The CBAs do not provide for an award of back- or front-pay for UH's violation of the HWPA. The exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies requirement does not apply to that claim. Sakaguchi's earnings disparity claim is covered by the CBAs. But HRS § 378-66 (2015) provides, in relevant part:

(b) . . . Where a collective bargaining agreement provides inferior rights and remedies to those provided in this subpart, the provisions of this subpart shall supersede and take precedence over the rights, remedies, and procedures provided in collective bargaining agreements.

The HWPA provides remedies including "injunctive relief, or actual damages, or both within two years after the occurrence of the alleged violation[,]" HRS § 378-63(a) (2015), and "payment of back wages, full reinstatement of fringe benefits and seniority rights, actual damages, or any combination of these remedies. . . . [and] all or a portion of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees and witness fees," HRS § 378-64 (2015). Sakaguchi was not required to exhaust the remedies available to her under the CBAs before proceeding with her earnings disparity claim under the HWPA, which provides rights and remedies superior to those provided by the CBAs.

D. The Circuit Court did not err by granting summary judgment for UH on Sakaguchi's other post-February 28, 2016 HWPA claims.

UH moved for summary judgment on Sakaguchi's remaining HWPA claims — those based on alleged violations occurring after February 28, 2016. Because Sakaguchi had the burden of proof at NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

trial, Crosby, 76 Hawai#i at 342, 876 P.2d at 1310, UH had the burden to show (1) there was no genuine issue of material fact on the essential elements of the claim addressed by the motion, and (2) the uncontroverted facts entitled it to judgment as a matter of law. Ralston, 129 Hawai#i at 56, 292 P.3d at 1286. If UH satisfied its burden, Sakaguchi had to "demonstrate specific facts, as opposed to general allegations, that present a genuine issue worthy of trial." Ralston, 129 Hawai#i at 56-57, 292 P.3d at 1286-87. UH's motion dealt with nine alleged violations of the HWPA that occurred after February 28, 2016. (1) Sakaguchi claimed to have been "excluded" from the Pacific Pandemic Preparedness Hui workshop in March 2016. Her response to a UH interrogatory stated:

I am talking about the Pacific Pandemic Preparedness Conference that has been noted in our previous documents. This conference was held on March 14-15, 2016 in Saunders Hall in the same building that my office is in, four floors above, in the SSRI office. She was the opening speaker because it is in the Social Sciences building, however, and not because of her expertise. I had designed pandemic avian influenza training and worked with the College of Tropical Agriculture in 2006 and am probably the only one in my College with that experience. I thought I could have benefited [sic] from attending and contributed to the dialogue. My colleagues in the field from out-of-state visited me at my office so we could walk together to the conference, not knowing that I had not even been invited by the College to attend. They were surprised. However, they informed me that they paid several hundred dollars in conference fees to attend but were required to write parts of the grant and a matching powerpoint [sic] presentation for Kim to obtain funding from a granting agency for two days. In September 2016, Konan states she was a co-organizer and the event was public so anyone could attend. She misses the point. There was a fair day dedicated to preparedness where disaster information and documents were shared. NDPTC [(the National Disaster Preparedness Training Center)] and others were present at the fair. I was unable to participate in the fair and share my work, which would help publicize my program. Konan continues to involve only Kim while denying all opportunities for me to participate in this field at the college and campus level.

UH submitted Konan's declaration, which stated that Sakaguchi "was never intentionally excluded from any workshop, NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

projects or opportunities between 2016 between [sic] March 2016 to October 14, 2018 as she alleges." Konan specifically stated:

5. With respect to the March 2016 Pacific Pandemic Preparedness Health Hui workshop at [sic] occurred at the Saunders Building at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, I was invited to give some opening remarks in my capacity as the Dean of the College of Social Sciences by the Pacific Risk Management Ohana (also known as PRiMO), but was not involved in organizing this two day event or inviting the participants who were members of PRiMO as it was being coordinated by Gregg Nakano whose organization I understood extended invitations to individuals who had maintained and/or requested a professional affiliation with or membership in PriMO. This would apply to the October 4, 2018 Pacific Pandemic Preparedness Summit (1918 Centennial) which was organized by PRiMO over which I had absolutely no involvement, participation, or control over any invitations to that event to PRiMO members.

Konan's declaration satisfied UH's burden of production under Ralston. Sakaguchi submitted a declaration in opposition. It stated:

14. In March 2016, I was excluded from a special workshop held at UH entitled the Pacific Pandemic Preparedness Hui that was organized by the Pacific Risk Management Ohana, even though the subject matter of the workshop was directly related to my Pacific EMPRINTS work. Defendant Konan was a key speaker at this workshop.

. . . . 34. Defendant Konan continues to engage in gaslighting. Certain faculty members of the College of Social Sciences were personally invited to the March 2016 Health [sic] Hui workshop, whereas I was not, even though my program, Pacific EMPRINTS, provided training in pandemics and is recognized at the nationa1 level for this training. 35. The UN-UH Pacific Preparedness Summit in October 2018 is a collaboration on Human Security Studies degree program. Denise Konan claims it involved PRIMO. It is a degree program therefore the UH is involved. PRIMO is involved with natural hazards in the Pacific Island communities.

. . . . 38. . . . Not informing me of workshops . . . denies me the chance to participate as an expert in workshops relevant to my field, and diminishes my reputation in the field that I have built up.

Sakaguchi did not show specific material facts by, for example, submitting declarations from other faculty members NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

stating Konan had invited them to the March 2016 Pacific Pandemic Preparedness Hui workshop but said to not include Sakaguchi. She did not sustain her burden to "demonstrate specific facts, as opposed to general allegations, that present a genuine issue worthy of trial." Ralston, 129 Hawai#i at 56-57, 292 P.3d at 1286-87. (2) Sakaguchi claimed to have been "excluded" from the Great Tsunami in Japan Conference in September 2016. UH submitted a declaration from its College of Social Sciences Systems Manager, Harry Partika, stating that on September 7, 2016, he "transmitted a College of Social Sciences' Event Notice on 'The Great Tsunami in Japan['] documentary premiere scheduled for September 17, 2016 to the entire faculty of the College of Social Sciences which included Ann Sakaguchi." Sakaguchi did not deny receiving Partika's event notice. Her declaration in opposition stated: "In September 2016, I was excluded from the Great Tsunami in Japan Conference held at UH which I understand was organized in part by Defendant Konan." This general allegation did not present a genuine issue of material fact about whether UH excluded her from the event. (3) Sakaguchi claimed to have been "excluded" from (a) a 2016 Lloyd's Register Foundation event, (b) public hearings on Senate Bill No. 257 and House Bill No. 2582, and (c) an April 2018 Memorandum of Understanding between the Commander of the United States Navy Pacific Command and the UH President. (a) Konan's declaration stated:

6. As for [Sakaguchi]'s claim that she was personally excluded from the Lloyd's Register Foundation ("Foundation") in March 2016, there was no workshop and my sole involvement in 2016 was responding to a March 9, 2016 email from Michael Bruno stating that he had personal hopes that University of Hawai#i could obtain "some funding from Lloyd's to convene a workshop and jump-start this activity at UH." In my email to Michael Bruno, I had attached a University of Hawai#i Disaster Risk Reduction & Resiliency Landscape Assessment that included [Sakaguchi]'s biographical information as the Director of Pacific EMPRINTS and her role in emergency management and preparedness. But there was no activity on March 9, 2016 that [Sakaguchi] was excluded or denied an opportunity from and there were no grant or funding opportunities offered by this Foundation in 2016 that I am aware of.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

UH Mânoa Provost Michael S. Bruno submitted a declaration stating: NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

of the university to notify faculty of these upcoming opportunities, well in advance of the date. None of the participants she selected possessed the scope and degree of disaster management that I could offer. 41. I would not be able to fully and actively participate as a speaker in a workshop, submit a proposal, or set up a booth if I was not advised or invited to these grants or workshops, in a timely manner. 42. I have expressed interest to attend workshops and related activities to Denise Konan a number of times, contrary to what she states in her declaration. The first such episode I recall was on April 25, 2012 when I met Denise Konan, with one of my instructors, Dr. Elizabeth Char, the Medical Director of the National Disaster Life Support Regional Training Center-Pacific, and current Director of the Department of Health in Denise Konan's office. It was at that meeting where Dr. Char and I both expressed interest in getting more involved with activities.

43. There were other workshops that I never knew about until discovery in this case, such as but not limited to the Rockefeller Foundation, Tohoku initiatives, PACOM initiatives, Lloyd Foundation and the Ford Foundation.

Sakaguchi's general allegations did not show Konan knew of specific events that Sakaguchi did not. Nor did Sakaguchi explain why, despite being the "Director of Pacific Emergency Management, Preparedness, and Response Information Network and Training Services ('Pacific EMPRINTS') since 2005 and Director of the National Disaster Life Support Regional Training Center- Pacific ('NDLS RTC-Pacific') since 2007[,]" Konan would have better access to information about third-party sponsored events related to Sakaguchi's own field of expertise. (b) Konan's declaration stated:

8. On February 15, 2017 I did testify before the Senate Committees on Agriculture & Environment, Public Safety, Intergovernmental, [sic] & Military Affairs, & [sic] Higher Education to respond to Senate Bill No. 257, which proposed to establish a temporary food security task force at the national disaster preparedness training center at the University of Hawaii and deferred all comments to NDPTC, but requested that the Legislature "look into extending the reporting period as funding and coordination may take time to formalize", but this Bill never passed. Since this was a public hearing, I cannot exclude anyone from testifying or participating. ^[9]. House Bill 2582 proposed a task force to make recommendations for the Hawaii Disaster Preparedness Plan, requiring NDPTC to assist the task force in preparing that Plan and at a February 8, 2018 Public Hearing, I merely provided information on the costs that would be incurred for NDPTC to carry out that request, but otherwise was never NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

involved in the drafting of this legislation or proposal of this Bill. Since this was a public hearing, I could not exclude anyone from testifying or participating.

Sakaguchi's declaration stated:

39. I did not state that Defendant Konan prevented me from testifying at the legislature for Senate Bill 257 in 2017. This is entirely fabricated. I stated that it was yet another example that I was excluded from a potential funding opportunity by Dean Konan. The fact that it received funding or not is irrelevant to the issue. It's the ability to have the same opportunity as any other faculty that is involved in the discipline. She claims the same for House Bill 2582 that she did not prevent me from testifying. I did not claim this either and it is another gaslighting fabricated statement by Denise Konan to discredit me.

Sakaguchi did not show she was prevented from testifying at public hearings, or from offering written testimony, on legislation relating to her own field of expertise. (c) Konan's declaration stated: NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

35. After Dr. Sakaguchi filed the December 2014 Grievance and made additional complaints in 2016 and 2017, her workplace environment became progressively more hostile. Instances of such hostility and retaliation that occurred from January 2015 to present include the following: . . . . h. In April 2017, Defendant Konan purported to have "lost" Dr. Sakaguchi's request for sabbatical paperwork that was submitted in January 2017. UH Human Resources Specialist Patti Au submitted a declaration stating: 4. It is my recollection that after Dr. Sakaguchi submitted her request in February, 2017, the paperwork for the sabbatical was approved by Dr. Christian Peterson, but it was misplaced and when Dr. Peterson reminded me of the sabbatical request on April 6, 2017, I had informed him that I did not recall seeing the paperwork for Dr. Sakaguchi's sabbatical request and would check with the other staff in my office but that if there was a copy available, would he please send it over and our office could work off the copy. ^[5]. After I received a copy of the paperwork for Dr. Sakaguchi's sabbatical request sometime after April 6, 2017 but prior to April 19, 2017, I handed the request to Dean Denise Konan and she approved it immediately. ^[6]. On April 19, 2017 I notified Christian Peterson that "Ann's sabbatical leave has been approved for the period 11-01-17 to 04-30-18" and that a notification letter was forthcoming. ^[7]. I do not believe that Dr. Sakaguchi's sabbatical request was intentionally delayed by Dean Denise Konan because when I handed her the copy of Dr. Sakaguchi's sabbatical request, she signed it immediately and this was slightly less than seven (7) months before Dr. Sakaguchi's planned sabbatical. Sakaguchi's declaration stated: 17. In April 2017, Defendant Konan purported to have "lost" my request for sabbatical paperwork that I submitted in February 2017. Approximately six months prior to the February 2017 sabbatical request, I submitted another sabbatical request which Denise Konan rejected because the request had to be submitted six months before the start date of the sabbatical so the submission timeline is critical. Denise Konan responded to my request for a status of the sabbatical only after I called the union and notified them that I did not get a response to my sabbatical request. . . . . 23. Patti Au's declaration states she recalls I submitted my sabbatical leave request in February 2017, which was misplaced for two months, and was found only after the Anthropology Department Chair Christian Peterson NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

reminded her about it. Patty Au's declaration is inexplicable. It does not explain how a document as important as a sabbatical leave request can be misplaced for a period of two months. If not for my initiative, the request would never have been processed within the required deadlines denying my faculty rights to sabbatical leave.

Sakaguchi's declaration admits the sabbatical issue was covered under the CBA. See HRS § 378-66. It appears, however, that pursuing her administrative remedies was unnecessary because her sabbatical leave was approved well before it was scheduled to be taken. She did not meet her burden to show she was unlawfully deprived of sabbatical leave. (5) Paragraph 35 of Sakaguchi's amended complaint alleged:

j. In the later part of 2017, Dr. Sakaguchi attempted to hire a part-time, entry-level employee. Dr. Sakaguchi's routine request was sent to Vassilis L. Syrmos, UH Vice President for Research and Innovation, for approval. The College of Social Sciences Fiscal Officer remarked to Dr. Sakaguchi that the necessity of formal approval from Mr. Syrmos was highly unusual and was not required for other similar faculty requests.

In response to an interrogatory about that allegation, Sakaguchi stated:

ANSWER: No hire was identified when the Research Associate position was requested to SSRI in late 2017. [Sakaguchi] later decided not to go forward with this hire, so the recruitment was promptly closed without making an offer to an individual.

Sakaguchi failed to show she was "discriminate[d] against . . . regarding [her] compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment" when she attempted to obtain approval for a part-time research associate position. She did not show approval was denied, and she admitted deciding not to hire anyone for that position. (6) Paragraph 35 of Sakaguchi's amended complaint alleged:

i. Beginning in July 2017, Pacific EMPRINTS servers are again malfunctioning, likely at the direction of UH Administrators.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

UH College of Social Sciences Systems Manager Partika's declaration stated:

4. Back in 2007, I personally assisted in configuring to two web servers, SQL server and file/print serve [sic] for Ann Sakaguchi and Pacific EMPRINTS and Attachment "1" is a true and correct list of the Pacific EMPRINTS sever [sic] Planning Document prepared on March 20, 2007 that I helped set up.

. . . . 6. Sometime in April or May 2015, Ann Sakaguchi had informed me that the Pacific EMPRINTS servers became inaccessible and the website had "crashed." 7. The multiple problems with Pacific EMPRINTS' computer servers were not caused because any UH Administrator had allegedly "redirected the servers to other IP and MAC addresses" but rather were attributable to the need to upgrade the hardware, replace the main computer servers that were at least 7 or more years old and perform backup of the website data.. [sic]

8. I had identified the particular computer components and servers as of July 6, 2015 that were existing and failing in Attachment "2".

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Sakaguchi's declaration stated: NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The Circuit Court correctly sustained UH's hearsay objection to Sakaguchi's statement in paragraph 31 that the "IT HELP desk said it might be a switch issue[.]" We disregard the conclusory statements and opinions in paragraphs 30, 31, and 32 of Sakaguchi's declaration because she failed to show she had the education, training, or experience necessary to comment on the technical issues she purported to address, see Rule 702, Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE), Chapter 626, Hawaii Revised Statutes (2016), and she did not show she had personal knowledge of Partika's technical ability or what he "thought," see HRE Rule 602. Sakaguchi did not rebut Partika's testimony that she did not perform the server upgrades he had recommended in 2015. Nor did Sakaguchi show, through declarations by Phil Page, Randy Glidden, Chuan Su, any "ArcGIS server specialists from ESRI in Redlands, California," or any other admissible evidence, that Pacific EMPRINTS' servers malfunctioned "at the direction of UH Administrators." Partika's supplemental declaration authenticated several emails to and from Sakaguchi between October 2017 and February 2018. On October 18, 2017, Sakaguchi emailed Partika that "Chuan looked into this and thought this is a network switch issue and that it was likely not the server itself." Sakaguchi submitted no declaration by Chuan stating that a network switch was the problem, or that it was UH's responsibility. On February 14, 2018, Partika emailed Sakaguchi, with an attachment, explaining why "your network switch does in deed [sic] work" and that the problem "is with your SQL server and data storage array." Sakaguchi failed to sustain her burden to show a genuine issue of material fact through admissible evidence that Pacific EMPRINTS' servers malfunctioned in 2017 "at the direction of UH Administrators."

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(7) Paragraph 35 of Sakaguchi's amended complaint alleged:

k. In the later part of 2017, Dr. Sakaguchi attempted to hire a research assistant from Japan. The Research Corporation of UH ("RCUH") Administrators informed Dr. Sakaguchi that RCUH policy dictates she must hire someone in Hawai#i. There was no such RCUH policy and this residential hiring restriction has not been imposed on any faculty member other than Dr. Sakaguchi.

Sakaguchi's declaration similarly stated: NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

UH submitted the declaration of John (Jack) Barile, the Interim Director of the Social Science Research Institute in the UH College of Social Sciences. Barile stated: 3. On June 10, 2020, I conducted a search of all grant and contract proposals by faculty members of the College of Social Sciences, UHM as Principal Investigators (PI) or Co-Investigators (who are the lead from the University of Hawai#i) (Co-I) from January 1, 2010 to present. . . . . 5. From January 1, 2010 to present, Ann Sakaguchi only submitted two grant or contract proposals as PI or Co-I. One proposal was for a non-research grant processed on April 11, 2011 and titled "Certified Training of RMI Ministry of Health Medical Staff in Basic Life Support Skills" and in which she was awarded a total of $50,375.00. The other proposal for a research sub-grant processed on January 23, 2013 and titled, "Enhancing Hazard Mitigation and Resiliency in Complex Emergencies and Disasters Using Point of Care, Cyberinfrastructure, and Cultural Outreach" which was rejected. This grant was for $430,781.00. Sakaguchi's declaration stated: 28. John Barile makes a false statement in his June 2020 declaration that I have a record of only two (2) grants since 2011 and of that one was rejected. I have provided counter evidence to the UH Office of the General Counsel of applying for (i) a $25 million U.S. Agency for International Development grant that I applied with Dr. Shirley Daniel in 2012; (ii) a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services HRSA grant for $1.3 million in 2013; (iii) a $386,100 Center for Disease Control and Prevention grant with San Diego State University in 2019; and (iv) approximately $860,000 in National Disaster Life Support trainings [sic]. The competitive grants mentioned above were "eliminated" from my university records at the Office of Research Services, where all faculty pursued grants, received or rejected, are recorded. I did not know this information was eliminated until John Barile had submitted his declaration in 2020. Sakaguchi's declaration contradicts her allegation that she was excluded from grant opportunities after February 28, 2016. And her memorandum opposing UH's motion did not explain how or why, if her competitive grants were applied for and received, the grants being "eliminated" from UH's records caused her harm. She failed to sustain her burden to show a genuine issue of material fact on this issue.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

V. CONCLUSION The Circuit Court's October 9, 2023 Final Judgment against Sakaguchi on all claims asserted against Konan is affirmed; the Final Judgment for UH and against Sakaguchi on Claim 4 for IIED is affirmed; the Final Judgment for UH and against Sakaguchi on Claim 1 is affirmed in part as to all claims under the HWPA except those for pay differential from February 28, 2016 onward for not being selected department chair in alleged violation of the HWPA, and for earnings disparity from February 28, 2016 onward caused by UH's alleged violation of the HWPA, as discussed in sections IV.B.^[3]. and IV.C. above. This case is remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum opinion. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 14, 2026. On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Margery S. Bronster, Chief Judge Rex Y. Fujichaku, Skylar G. Lucas, /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka for Plaintiff-Appellant Associate Judge Ann Sakaguchi. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Carrie K.S. Okinaga, Associate Judge Derek T. Mayeshiro, for Defendants-Appellees University of Hawai#i and Denise Konan in her capacity as Dean of the University of Hawai#i at Mânoa College of Social Sciences. Gary Y. Takeuchi, Justin M. Luney, for Defendant-Appellee Denise Konan, individually.

MEMORANDUM OPINION (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Ann Sakaguchi appeals from the Final Judgment for the University of Hawai#i (UH) and Denise Konan, entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit.^[1] We hold: (1) Sakaguchi's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Law; (2) claims based on separate, distinguishable violations of the Hawai#i Whistleblowers' Protection Act (HWPA) that occurred over two years before she sued were time-barred, but claims for alleged violations that occurred within the two years before she sued, and her claims for pay differential and earning disparity beginning two years before she sued, were not time-barred; (3)(a) her claim for not being named department chair was not subject to NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

February 28, 2016 Retaliatory Claims" based on the statute of limitations and treating UH's statute of limitations defense as a jurisdictional issue; (3) entering summary judgment for failure to exhaust her remedies under the University of Hawai#i Professional Assembly collective bargaining agreements (CBAs); and (4) granting summary judgment on her post-February 28, 2016 HWPA claims.

III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Motion to Dismiss

Orders granting motions to dismiss are reviewed de novo. Kealoha v. Machado, 131 Hawai#i 62, 74, 315 P.3d 213, 225 (2013). We assume the facts alleged in the complaint are true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to see if they warrant relief under any legal theory. Id. We are not required to accept conclusions about the legal effect of the facts alleged, id., but we bear in mind that Hawai#i is a notice- pleading jurisdiction where legal theories need not be pleaded with precision, Bank of Am., N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 143 Hawai#i 249, 259, 428 P.3d 761, 771 (2018), overruled on other grounds by Wilmington Savs. Fund Soc'y v. Domingo, 155 Hawai#i 1, 556 P.3d 347 (2024).

B. Motion for Summary Judgment

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Ralston v. Yim, 129 Hawai#i 46, 55, 292 P.3d 1276, 1285 (2013). Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence shows there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. A fact is material if proof of that fact would establish or refute an essential element of a party's cause of action or defense. Id. at 55–56, 292 P.3d at 1285–86. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. at 56, 292 P.3d at 1286. "[F]indings of fact made by a trial court in relation to a summary judgment ruling are not binding on appeal, nor do NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

they alter our de novo standard of review regarding a summary judgment ruling." Hilo Bay Marina, LLC v. State, 156 Hawai#i 478, 487, 575 P.3d 568, 577 (2025).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Sakaguchi's IIED claim, which was not based on sexual harassment or sexual assault, was barred by HRS § 386-5.

Sakaguchi was employed by UH. UH moved to dismiss her IIED claim,4 arguing it was barred by the Hawai#i Workers Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision. The motion was filed under Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 12(b)(6) and presented no evidence outside the pleadings. Sakaguchi's opposition presented no evidence outside the pleadings. We disregard the declarations and exhibits attached to UH's reply memorandum. HRS § 386-5 (2015) provides:

The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee . . . on account of a work injury suffered by the employee shall exclude all other liability of the employer to the employee, . . . at common law or otherwise, on account of the injury, except for sexual harassment or sexual assault and infliction of emotional distress or invasion of privacy related thereto, in which case a civil action may also be brought.

(Emphasis added.) The supreme court has held:

Based on a plain reading, HRS § 386-5 unambiguously provides that claims for infliction of emotional distress . . . are not subject to the exclusivity provision when such claims arise from claims for sexual harassment or sexual assault, in which case a civil action may be brought. Inasmuch as [plaintiff] has alleged a claim for emotional distress, that does not arise out of sexual harassment or sexual assault, such claim is, pursuant to HRS § 386-5, barred.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawai#i 92, 109, 176 P.3d 91, 108 (2008) (bold italics added). Here, the allegations in Sakaguchi's amended complaint, viewed in the light most favorable to her, do not allege she was sexually harassed or sexually assaulted. Sakaguchi argues HRS § 386-5 does not bar her IIED claim because her amended complaint alleged she was discriminated against "after she complained about suspected Equal Pay Act violations[.]" She relies on Furukawa v. Honolulu Zoological Society, 85 Hawai#i 7, 936 P.2d 643 (1997) and Takaki v. Allied Machinery Corp., 87 Hawai#i 57, 951 P.2d 507 (App. 1998). The claims in Furukawa were for discriminatory employment practices in violation of HRS § 378-2 (Supp. 1996).5 The Hawai#i Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) has jurisdiction over claims under HRS § 378-2. See HRS § 378-4 (Supp. 1996 & 2015). The supreme court actually ruled: "The law is explicit that 'a workers' compensation claim or remedy does not bar relief on claims filed with the [HCRC].'" 85 Hawai#i at 19, 936 P.2d at 655 (quoting HRS § 368–17(b)). Sakaguchi's amended complaint does not allege that UH violated HRS § 378-2. Takaki also involved an alleged violation of HRS § 378-2. There, we held that "Furukawa would permit Takaki to maintain an action against Appellees for intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by terminating him in violation of HRS § 378–2." 87 Hawai#i at 68, 951 P.2d at 518.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Sakaguchi's amended complaint did not allege she was discriminated against in violation of HRS § 378-2. It alleged she was discriminated against, in violation of the HWPA, because she complained about UH violating the Equal Pay Act. Her IIED claim against UH was barred by HRS § 386-5.6 Kamaka, 117 Hawai#i at 109, 176 P.3d at 108.

B. The Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction over Sakaguchi's claims based on separate, distinguishable HWPA violations that occurred before February 28, 2016; her claims for pay differential and earning disparity after February 28, 2016 are not time-barred.

Sakaguchi filed her complaint on February 28, 2018. UH moved for summary judgment on the HWPA claims that accrued before February 28, 2016. UH relied on the HRS § 661-5 two-year statute of limitations. The Circuit Court treated the motion as one to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction,7 and granted it. Sakaguchi argues that the Circuit Court erred by basing its ruling on lack of jurisdiction, and that her claims for pre- February 28, 2016 discrimination were not time-barred under the continuing tort doctrine. HRS § 378-62 (2015) provides, in relevant part:

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 . . . 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(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[.]

The HWPA is a remedial statute, liberally construed to accomplish the purpose for which it was enacted. Crosby v. Dep't of Budget & Fin., 76 Hawai#i 332, 341–42, 876 P.2d 1300, 1309–10 (1994). Sakaguchi has the burden to prove she engaged in protected conduct, and that it was a "substantial or motivating factor" for UH engaging in prohibited conduct. Id. at 342, 876 P.2d at 1310. If she sustains her burden of proof, the "employer can defend affirmatively by showing that the [prohibited conduct] would have occurred regardless of the protected activity." Id.

(1) HRS § 661-5 imposes a jurisdictional limitation on the State's consent to be sued.

UH is a department of the State. HRS § 26-4(7) (2009). It is an "employer" under the HWPA. HRS § 378-61 (2015). The circuit courts have jurisdiction over HWPA claims against UH under HRS § 304A-108(a)8 (2007) and HRS § 661-1(1) (2016). "HRS § 661-1 . . . contains a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for claims against the State of Hawai#i that are founded upon a statute[.]" Garner v. State, 122 Hawai#i 150, 160, 223 P.3d 215, 225 (App. 2009). HRS § 661-5 (2016) provides, in relevant part:

Every claim against the State, cognizable under this part, shall be forever barred unless the action is commenced within two years after the claim first accrues[.]

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

An HWPA claim accrues when the employee knows or should have known, Blair v. Ing, 95 Hawai#i 247, 264, 21 P.3d 452, 469 (2001), that their employer has taken adverse action because of the employee's protected activity, Andrade v. County of Hawai#i, 145 Hawai#i 265, 277, 451 P.3d 1, 13 (App. 2019). The legislature did not consent to UH being sued for violating the HWPA over two years after the claim first accrued. The time bar is jurisdictional. Cf. Okutsu v. State, 153 Hawai#i 192, 196, 528 P.3d 956, 960 (App. 2023) (holding that State Tort Liability Act statute of limitations, HRS § 662-4 (2016), "is a term of the legislature's consent for the State to be sued in tort"). Thus, if a lawsuit alleging UH violated the HWPA is filed "more than two years after the claim accrued, state courts have no subject matter jurisdiction over the claim." Cf. id. at 199, 528 P.3d at 963.

(2) The Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction over HWPA claims based on separate, distinguishable violations that occurred before February 28, 2016.

Sakaguchi does not controvert that she knew, before February 28, 2016, that she was excluded from specific grant applications, funding opportunities, projects, meetings, conferences, legislative hearings, and initiatives. The Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction over the HWPA claims based on those alleged violations. The Circuit Court also lacked jurisdiction over Sakaguchi's claim based on Konan allegedly threatening to take away her project space and causing her computer servers to become intermittently inaccessible in 2015. The continuous tort doctrine does not apply to those claims under the circumstances of this case, because Sakaguchi alleged a series of separate, distinguishable violations by UH and Konan. See Boyd v. Univ. of Haw., No. 30547, 2012 WL 503797, at *3 (Haw. App. Feb. ^[13], 2012) (mem. op.) (holding that continuous tort doctrine did not apply where HWPA claimant alleged "a series of separate and distinguishable acts"), cert. rejected, No. SCWC-30547, 2012 WL 2026001 (Haw. June 4, 2012).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(3) Sakaguchi's claims for pay differential and earning disparity after February 28, 2016 are not time-barred. Sakaguchi's amended complaint alleged that her Department of Anthropology colleagues recommended she become department chair in February 2014, but Konan rejected the recommendation, which deprived her of a pay increase. Although the alleged HWPA violation occurred over two years before Sakaguchi sued UH, the statute of limitations for her periodic pay claim begins to run on each paycheck as it becomes due. Garner, 122 Hawai#i at 169, 223 P.3d at 234. Sakaguchi's claim for pay differential (for being wrongfully not selected department chair) before February 28, 2016 is barred by HRS § 661-5, but her claim for additional pay due from February 28, 2016 onward is not time-barred. Id. Sakaguchi's amended complaint also alleged: 37. Despite Dr. Sakaguchi's contributions, experience, and state, national and international recognition in her field, her earnings are near the bottom 10th percentile compared to similarly situated UHM faculty, who are paid at rates in the 75th percentile or higher. The claim for earnings disparity after February 28, 2016, caused by UH's violation of the HWPA is not time-barred. Garner, 122 Hawai#i at 169, 223 P.3d at 234. C. Sakaguchi's claim for not being named department chair was not subject to a CBA; her claim for earnings disparity was subject to a CBA but was actionable under HRS § 378-66. UH argued that Sakaguchi "fail[ed] to exhaust all administrative remedies with respect to submitting a request for pay increases for merit, equity or market as a Special Salary Adjustment ("SSA") pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between the University of Hawai#i Professional Assembly and the University of Hawai#i Board of Regents." Copies of the CBAs were appended to UH's motion for summary judgment.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

UH argues that Sakaguchi "could have submitted an SSA request if she sought an increase in her salary from the University based on merit and equity principles." But Sakaguchi's amended complaint did not allege she was entitled to, or wrongfully deprived of, an SSA based on merit, equity, or market. Her claim for back- and front-pay was made under HRS § 378-64, as a remedy for Konan wrongfully rejecting her colleagues' recommendation she be named department chair. The CBAs do not provide for an award of back- or front-pay for UH's violation of the HWPA. The exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies requirement does not apply to that claim. Sakaguchi's earnings disparity claim is covered by the CBAs. But HRS § 378-66 (2015) provides, in relevant part:

(b) . . . Where a collective bargaining agreement provides inferior rights and remedies to those provided in this subpart, the provisions of this subpart shall supersede and take precedence over the rights, remedies, and procedures provided in collective bargaining agreements.

The HWPA provides remedies including "injunctive relief, or actual damages, or both within two years after the occurrence of the alleged violation[,]" HRS § 378-63(a) (2015), and "payment of back wages, full reinstatement of fringe benefits and seniority rights, actual damages, or any combination of these remedies. . . . [and] all or a portion of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees and witness fees," HRS § 378-64 (2015). Sakaguchi was not required to exhaust the remedies available to her under the CBAs before proceeding with her earnings disparity claim under the HWPA, which provides rights and remedies superior to those provided by the CBAs.

D. The Circuit Court did not err by granting summary judgment for UH on Sakaguchi's other post-February 28, 2016 HWPA claims.

UH moved for summary judgment on Sakaguchi's remaining HWPA claims — those based on alleged violations occurring after February 28, 2016. Because Sakaguchi had the burden of proof at NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

trial, Crosby, 76 Hawai#i at 342, 876 P.2d at 1310, UH had the burden to show (1) there was no genuine issue of material fact on the essential elements of the claim addressed by the motion, and (2) the uncontroverted facts entitled it to judgment as a matter of law. Ralston, 129 Hawai#i at 56, 292 P.3d at 1286. If UH satisfied its burden, Sakaguchi had to "demonstrate specific facts, as opposed to general allegations, that present a genuine issue worthy of trial." Ralston, 129 Hawai#i at 56-57, 292 P.3d at 1286-87. UH's motion dealt with nine alleged violations of the HWPA that occurred after February 28, 2016. (1) Sakaguchi claimed to have been "excluded" from the Pacific Pandemic Preparedness Hui workshop in March 2016. Her response to a UH interrogatory stated:

I am talking about the Pacific Pandemic Preparedness Conference that has been noted in our previous documents. This conference was held on March 14-15, 2016 in Saunders Hall in the same building that my office is in, four floors above, in the SSRI office. She was the opening speaker because it is in the Social Sciences building, however, and not because of her expertise. I had designed pandemic avian influenza training and worked with the College of Tropical Agriculture in 2006 and am probably the only one in my College with that experience. I thought I could have benefited [sic] from attending and contributed to the dialogue. My colleagues in the field from out-of-state visited me at my office so we could walk together to the conference, not knowing that I had not even been invited by the College to attend. They were surprised. However, they informed me that they paid several hundred dollars in conference fees to attend but were required to write parts of the grant and a matching powerpoint [sic] presentation for Kim to obtain funding from a granting agency for two days. In September 2016, Konan states she was a co-organizer and the event was public so anyone could attend. She misses the point. There was a fair day dedicated to preparedness where disaster information and documents were shared. NDPTC [(the National Disaster Preparedness Training Center)] and others were present at the fair. I was unable to participate in the fair and share my work, which would help publicize my program. Konan continues to involve only Kim while denying all opportunities for me to participate in this field at the college and campus level.

UH submitted Konan's declaration, which stated that Sakaguchi "was never intentionally excluded from any workshop, NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

projects or opportunities between 2016 between [sic] March 2016 to October 14, 2018 as she alleges." Konan specifically stated:

5. With respect to the March 2016 Pacific Pandemic Preparedness Health Hui workshop at [sic] occurred at the Saunders Building at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, I was invited to give some opening remarks in my capacity as the Dean of the College of Social Sciences by the Pacific Risk Management Ohana (also known as PRiMO), but was not involved in organizing this two day event or inviting the participants who were members of PRiMO as it was being coordinated by Gregg Nakano whose organization I understood extended invitations to individuals who had maintained and/or requested a professional affiliation with or membership in PriMO. This would apply to the October 4, 2018 Pacific Pandemic Preparedness Summit (1918 Centennial) which was organized by PRiMO over which I had absolutely no involvement, participation, or control over any invitations to that event to PRiMO members.

Konan's declaration satisfied UH's burden of production under Ralston. Sakaguchi submitted a declaration in opposition. It stated:

14. In March 2016, I was excluded from a special workshop held at UH entitled the Pacific Pandemic Preparedness Hui that was organized by the Pacific Risk Management Ohana, even though the subject matter of the workshop was directly related to my Pacific EMPRINTS work. Defendant Konan was a key speaker at this workshop.

. . . . 34. Defendant Konan continues to engage in gaslighting. Certain faculty members of the College of Social Sciences were personally invited to the March 2016 Health [sic] Hui workshop, whereas I was not, even though my program, Pacific EMPRINTS, provided training in pandemics and is recognized at the nationa1 level for this training. 35. The UN-UH Pacific Preparedness Summit in October 2018 is a collaboration on Human Security Studies degree program. Denise Konan claims it involved PRIMO. It is a degree program therefore the UH is involved. PRIMO is involved with natural hazards in the Pacific Island communities. . . . . 38. . . . Not informing me of workshops . . . denies me the chance to participate as an expert in workshops relevant to my field, and diminishes my reputation in the field that I have built up.

Sakaguchi did not show specific material facts by, for example, submitting declarations from other faculty members NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

stating Konan had invited them to the March 2016 Pacific Pandemic Preparedness Hui workshop but said to not include Sakaguchi. She did not sustain her burden to "demonstrate specific facts, as opposed to general allegations, that present a genuine issue worthy of trial." Ralston, 129 Hawai#i at 56-57, 292 P.3d at 1286-87. (2) Sakaguchi claimed to have been "excluded" from the Great Tsunami in Japan Conference in September 2016. UH submitted a declaration from its College of Social Sciences Systems Manager, Harry Partika, stating that on September 7, 2016, he "transmitted a College of Social Sciences' Event Notice on 'The Great Tsunami in Japan['] documentary premiere scheduled for September 17, 2016 to the entire faculty of the College of Social Sciences which included Ann Sakaguchi." Sakaguchi did not deny receiving Partika's event notice. Her declaration in opposition stated: "In September 2016, I was excluded from the Great Tsunami in Japan Conference held at UH which I understand was organized in part by Defendant Konan." This general allegation did not present a genuine issue of material fact about whether UH excluded her from the event. (3) Sakaguchi claimed to have been "excluded" from (a) a 2016 Lloyd's Register Foundation event, (b) public hearings on Senate Bill No. 257 and House Bill No. 2582, and (c) an April 2018 Memorandum of Understanding between the Commander of the United States Navy Pacific Command and the UH President. (a) Konan's declaration stated:

6. As for [Sakaguchi]'s claim that she was personally excluded from the Lloyd's Register Foundation ("Foundation") in March 2016, there was no workshop and my sole involvement in 2016 was responding to a March 9, 2016 email from Michael Bruno stating that he had personal hopes that University of Hawai#i could obtain "some funding from Lloyd's to convene a workshop and jump-start this activity at UH." In my email to Michael Bruno, I had attached a University of Hawai#i Disaster Risk Reduction & Resiliency Landscape Assessment that included [Sakaguchi]'s biographical information as the Director of Pacific EMPRINTS and her role in emergency management and preparedness. But there was no activity on March 9, 2016 that [Sakaguchi] was excluded or denied an opportunity from and there were no grant or funding opportunities offered by this Foundation in 2016 that I am aware of.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

UH Mânoa Provost Michael S. Bruno submitted a declaration stating: NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

of the university to notify faculty of these upcoming opportunities, well in advance of the date. None of the participants she selected possessed the scope and degree of disaster management that I could offer. 41. I would not be able to fully and actively participate as a speaker in a workshop, submit a proposal, or set up a booth if I was not advised or invited to these grants or workshops, in a timely manner. 42. I have expressed interest to attend workshops and related activities to Denise Konan a number of times, contrary to what she states in her declaration. The first such episode I recall was on April 25, 2012 when I met Denise Konan, with one of my instructors, Dr. Elizabeth Char, the Medical Director of the National Disaster Life Support Regional Training Center-Pacific, and current Director of the Department of Health in Denise Konan's office. It was at that meeting where Dr. Char and I both expressed interest in getting more involved with activities.

43. There were other workshops that I never knew about until discovery in this case, such as but not limited to the Rockefeller Foundation, Tohoku initiatives, PACOM initiatives, Lloyd Foundation and the Ford Foundation.

Sakaguchi's general allegations did not show Konan knew of specific events that Sakaguchi did not. Nor did Sakaguchi explain why, despite being the "Director of Pacific Emergency Management, Preparedness, and Response Information Network and Training Services ('Pacific EMPRINTS') since 2005 and Director of the National Disaster Life Support Regional Training Center- Pacific ('NDLS RTC-Pacific') since 2007[,]" Konan would have better access to information about third-party sponsored events related to Sakaguchi's own field of expertise. (b) Konan's declaration stated:

8. On February 15, 2017 I did testify before the Senate Committees on Agriculture & Environment, Public Safety, Intergovernmental, [sic] & Military Affairs, & [sic] Higher Education to respond to Senate Bill No. 257, which proposed to establish a temporary food security task force at the national disaster preparedness training center at the University of Hawaii and deferred all comments to NDPTC, but requested that the Legislature "look into extending the reporting period as funding and coordination may take time to formalize", but this Bill never passed. Since this was a public hearing, I cannot exclude anyone from testifying or participating.

9. House Bill 2582 proposed a task force to make recommendations for the Hawaii Disaster Preparedness Plan, requiring NDPTC to assist the task force in preparing that Plan and at a February 8, 2018 Public Hearing, I merely provided information on the costs that would be incurred for NDPTC to carry out that request, but otherwise was never NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

involved in the drafting of this legislation or proposal of this Bill. Since this was a public hearing, I could not exclude anyone from testifying or participating.

Sakaguchi's declaration stated:

39. I did not state that Defendant Konan prevented me from testifying at the legislature for Senate Bill 257 in 2017. This is entirely fabricated. I stated that it was yet another example that I was excluded from a potential funding opportunity by Dean Konan. The fact that it received funding or not is irrelevant to the issue. It's the ability to have the same opportunity as any other faculty that is involved in the discipline. She claims the same for House Bill 2582 that she did not prevent me from testifying. I did not claim this either and it is another gaslighting fabricated statement by Denise Konan to discredit me.

Sakaguchi did not show she was prevented from testifying at public hearings, or from offering written testimony, on legislation relating to her own field of expertise. (c) Konan's declaration stated: NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

35. After Dr. Sakaguchi filed the December 2014 Grievance and made additional complaints in 2016 and 2017, her workplace environment became progressively more hostile. Instances of such hostility and retaliation that occurred from January 2015 to present include the following: . . . . h. In April 2017, Defendant Konan purported to have "lost" Dr. Sakaguchi's request for sabbatical paperwork that was submitted in January 2017. UH Human Resources Specialist Patti Au submitted a declaration stating: 4. It is my recollection that after Dr. Sakaguchi submitted her request in February, 2017, the paperwork for the sabbatical was approved by Dr. Christian Peterson, but it was misplaced and when Dr. Peterson reminded me of the sabbatical request on April 6, 2017, I had informed him that I did not recall seeing the paperwork for Dr. Sakaguchi's sabbatical request and would check with the other staff in my office but that if there was a copy available, would he please send it over and our office could work off the copy. ^[5]. After I received a copy of the paperwork for Dr. Sakaguchi's sabbatical request sometime after April 6, 2017 but prior to April 19, 2017, I handed the request to Dean Denise Konan and she approved it immediately. ^[6]. On April 19, 2017 I notified Christian Peterson that "Ann's sabbatical leave has been approved for the period 11-01-17 to 04-30-18" and that a notification letter was forthcoming. ^[7]. I do not believe that Dr. Sakaguchi's sabbatical request was intentionally delayed by Dean Denise Konan because when I handed her the copy of Dr. Sakaguchi's sabbatical request, she signed it immediately and this was slightly less than seven (7) months before Dr. Sakaguchi's planned sabbatical. Sakaguchi's declaration stated: 17. In April 2017, Defendant Konan purported to have "lost" my request for sabbatical paperwork that I submitted in February 2017. Approximately six months prior to the February 2017 sabbatical request, I submitted another sabbatical request which Denise Konan rejected because the request had to be submitted six months before the start date of the sabbatical so the submission timeline is critical. Denise Konan responded to my request for a status of the sabbatical only after I called the union and notified them that I did not get a response to my sabbatical request. . . . . 23. Patti Au's declaration states she recalls I submitted my sabbatical leave request in February 2017, which was misplaced for two months, and was found only after the Anthropology Department Chair Christian Peterson NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

reminded her about it. Patty Au's declaration is inexplicable. It does not explain how a document as important as a sabbatical leave request can be misplaced for a period of two months. If not for my initiative, the request would never have been processed within the required deadlines denying my faculty rights to sabbatical leave.

Sakaguchi's declaration admits the sabbatical issue was covered under the CBA. See HRS § 378-66. It appears, however, that pursuing her administrative remedies was unnecessary because her sabbatical leave was approved well before it was scheduled to be taken. She did not meet her burden to show she was unlawfully deprived of sabbatical leave. (5) Paragraph 35 of Sakaguchi's amended complaint alleged:

j. In the later part of 2017, Dr. Sakaguchi attempted to hire a part-time, entry-level employee. Dr. Sakaguchi's routine request was sent to Vassilis L. Syrmos, UH Vice President for Research and Innovation, for approval. The College of Social Sciences Fiscal Officer remarked to Dr. Sakaguchi that the necessity of formal approval from Mr. Syrmos was highly unusual and was not required for other similar faculty requests.

In response to an interrogatory about that allegation, Sakaguchi stated:

ANSWER: No hire was identified when the Research Associate position was requested to SSRI in late 2017. [Sakaguchi] later decided not to go forward with this hire, so the recruitment was promptly closed without making an offer to an individual.

Sakaguchi failed to show she was "discriminate[d] against . . . regarding [her] compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment" when she attempted to obtain approval for a part-time research associate position. She did not show approval was denied, and she admitted deciding not to hire anyone for that position. (6) Paragraph 35 of Sakaguchi's amended complaint alleged:

i. Beginning in July 2017, Pacific EMPRINTS servers are again malfunctioning, likely at the direction of UH Administrators.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

UH College of Social Sciences Systems Manager Partika's declaration stated:

4. Back in 2007, I personally assisted in configuring to two web servers, SQL server and file/print serve [sic] for Ann Sakaguchi and Pacific EMPRINTS and Attachment "1" is a true and correct list of the Pacific EMPRINTS sever [sic] Planning Document prepared on March 20, 2007 that I helped set up.

. . . . 6. Sometime in April or May 2015, Ann Sakaguchi had informed me that the Pacific EMPRINTS servers became inaccessible and the website had "crashed."

7. The multiple problems with Pacific EMPRINTS' computer servers were not caused because any UH Administrator had allegedly "redirected the servers to other IP and MAC addresses" but rather were attributable to the need to upgrade the hardware, replace the main computer servers that were at least 7 or more years old and perform backup of the website data.. [sic]

8. I had identified the particular computer components and servers as of July 6, 2015 that were existing and failing in Attachment "2".

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Sakaguchi's declaration stated: NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The Circuit Court correctly sustained UH's hearsay objection to Sakaguchi's statement in paragraph 31 that the "IT HELP desk said it might be a switch issue[.]" We disregard the conclusory statements and opinions in paragraphs 30, 31, and 32 of Sakaguchi's declaration because she failed to show she had the education, training, or experience necessary to comment on the technical issues she purported to address, see Rule 702, Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE), Chapter 626, Hawaii Revised Statutes (2016), and she did not show she had personal knowledge of Partika's technical ability or what he "thought," see HRE Rule 602. Sakaguchi did not rebut Partika's testimony that she did not perform the server upgrades he had recommended in 2015. Nor did Sakaguchi show, through declarations by Phil Page, Randy Glidden, Chuan Su, any "ArcGIS server specialists from ESRI in Redlands, California," or any other admissible evidence, that Pacific EMPRINTS' servers malfunctioned "at the direction of UH Administrators." Partika's supplemental declaration authenticated several emails to and from Sakaguchi between October 2017 and February 2018. On October 18, 2017, Sakaguchi emailed Partika that "Chuan looked into this and thought this is a network switch issue and that it was likely not the server itself." Sakaguchi submitted no declaration by Chuan stating that a network switch was the problem, or that it was UH's responsibility. On February 14, 2018, Partika emailed Sakaguchi, with an attachment, explaining why "your network switch does in deed [sic] work" and that the problem "is with your SQL server and data storage array." Sakaguchi failed to sustain her burden to show a genuine issue of material fact through admissible evidence that Pacific EMPRINTS' servers malfunctioned in 2017 "at the direction of UH Administrators."

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(7) Paragraph 35 of Sakaguchi's amended complaint alleged:

k. In the later part of 2017, Dr. Sakaguchi attempted to hire a research assistant from Japan. The Research Corporation of UH ("RCUH") Administrators informed Dr. Sakaguchi that RCUH policy dictates she must hire someone in Hawai#i. There was no such RCUH policy and this residential hiring restriction has not been imposed on any faculty member other than Dr. Sakaguchi.

Sakaguchi's declaration similarly stated: NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

UH submitted the declaration of John (Jack) Barile, the Interim Director of the Social Science Research Institute in the UH College of Social Sciences. Barile stated: 3. On June 10, 2020, I conducted a search of all grant and contract proposals by faculty members of the College of Social Sciences, UHM as Principal Investigators (PI) or Co-Investigators (who are the lead from the University of Hawai#i) (Co-I) from January 1, 2010 to present. . . . . 5. From January 1, 2010 to present, Ann Sakaguchi only submitted two grant or contract proposals as PI or Co-I. One proposal was for a non-research grant processed on April 11, 2011 and titled "Certified Training of RMI Ministry of Health Medical Staff in Basic Life Support Skills" and in which she was awarded a total of $50,375.00. The other proposal for a research sub-grant processed on January 23, 2013 and titled, "Enhancing Hazard Mitigation and Resiliency in Complex Emergencies and Disasters Using Point of Care, Cyberinfrastructure, and Cultural Outreach" which was rejected. This grant was for $430,781.00. Sakaguchi's declaration stated: 28. John Barile makes a false statement in his June 2020 declaration that I have a record of only two (2) grants since 2011 and of that one was rejected. I have provided counter evidence to the UH Office of the General Counsel of applying for (i) a $25 million U.S. Agency for International Development grant that I applied with Dr. Shirley Daniel in 2012; (ii) a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services HRSA grant for $1.3 million in 2013; (iii) a $386,100 Center for Disease Control and Prevention grant with San Diego State University in 2019; and (iv) approximately $860,000 in National Disaster Life Support trainings [sic]. The competitive grants mentioned above were "eliminated" from my university records at the Office of Research Services, where all faculty pursued grants, received or rejected, are recorded. I did not know this information was eliminated until John Barile had submitted his declaration in 2020. Sakaguchi's declaration contradicts her allegation that she was excluded from grant opportunities after February 28, 2016. And her memorandum opposing UH's motion did not explain how or why, if her competitive grants were applied for and received, the grants being "eliminated" from UH's records caused her harm. She failed to sustain her burden to show a genuine issue of material fact on this issue.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

V. CONCLUSION The Circuit Court's October 9, 2023 Final Judgment against Sakaguchi on all claims asserted against Konan is affirmed; the Final Judgment for UH and against Sakaguchi on Claim 4 for IIED is affirmed; the Final Judgment for UH and against Sakaguchi on Claim 1 is affirmed in part as to all claims under the HWPA except those for pay differential from February 28, 2016 onward for not being selected department chair in alleged violation of the HWPA, and for earnings disparity from February 28, 2016 onward caused by UH's alleged violation of the HWPA, as discussed in sections IV.B.^[3]. and IV.C. above. This case is remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum opinion. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 14, 2026. On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Margery S. Bronster, Chief Judge Rex Y. Fujichaku, Skylar G. Lucas, /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka for Plaintiff-Appellant Associate Judge Ann Sakaguchi. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Carrie K.S. Okinaga, Associate Judge Derek T. Mayeshiro, for Defendants-Appellees University of Hawai#i and Denise Konan in her capacity as Dean of the University of Hawai#i at Mânoa College of Social Sciences. Gary Y. Takeuchi, Justin M. Luney, for Defendant-Appellee Denise Konan, individually.