public policy exception in Hawaii

2025The public policy exception applies "only in cases where enforcing an arbitration award or contract would involve illegality or violate public policy." Id. (citing In re Grievance Arbitration Between State Org. of Police Officers and County of Kaua#i (SHOPO), 135 Hawai#i 456, 465-67, 353 P.3d 998, 1007-09 (2015)).

2021Id. (citing Sause Bros., 77 Hawai#i at 194, 881 P.2d at 1262 ) (adopting the public policy exception of Misco and directing that the exception should be applied under the guidelines set forth in Misco)." A court's refusal to enforce an arbitrator's award . . . because it is contrary to public policy is a specific application of the more general doctrine, rooted in the common law, that a court may refuse to enforce contracts that violate law or public policy. [The 'public policy' exception] derives from the basic notion that no court will lend its aid to one who founds a cause of action upon an

2021This public policy exception is based on the exception recognized by the United States Supreme Court in United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987).

2021Id. (citing Sause Bros., 77 Hawai#i at 194, 881 P.2d at 1262 ) (adopting the public policy exception of Misco and directing that the exception should be applied under the guidelines set forth in Misco)." A court's refusal to enforce an arbitrator's award . . . because it is contrary to public policy is a specific application of the more general doctrine, rooted in the common law, that a court may refuse to enforce contracts that violate law or public policy. [The 'public policy' exception] derives from the basic notion that no court will lend its aid to one who founds a cause of action upon an

2014In Takaki v. Allied Machinery Corporation, the ICA stated, “If ... the statutory or regulatory provisions which evidence the public policy themselves provide a remedy for the wrongful discharge, provision of a further remedy under the public policy exception is unnecessary.” 87 Hawai'i 57, 63 , 951 P.2d 507, 513 (App.1998); see also Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co., 76 Hawai'i 454, 464 , 879 P.2d 1037, 1047 (1994) (noting that a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy cannot be asserted “where the policy sought to be vindicated is already embodied in a statute providing its own

2014In Takaki v. Allied Machinery Corporation, the ICA stated, “If . . . the statutory or regulatory provisions which evidence the public policy themselves provide a remedy for the wrongful discharge, provision of a further remedy under the public policy exception is unnecessary.” 87 Hawai#i 57, 63, 951 P.2d 507, 513 (App. 1998); see also Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co., 76 Hawai#i 454, 464, 879 P.2d 1037, 1047 (1994) (noting that a claim for wrongful -75- *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** termination in violation of public policy cannot be asserted “where the polic

2025The public policy exception applies "only in cases where enforcing an arbitration award or contract would involve illegality or violate public policy." Id. (citing In re Grievance Arbitration Between State Org. of Police Officers and County of Kaua#i (SHOPO), 135 Hawai#i 456, 465-67, 353 P.3d 998, 1007-09 (2015)).

2017SHOPO, 135 Hawai'i at 465-67 , 353 P.3d at 1007-09 ; see also Inlandboatmen, 77 Hawai'i at 194 , 881 P.2d at 1262 (providing examples of Hawai'i courts applying the public policy exception).

2014In Takaki v. Allied Machinery Corporation, the ICA stated, “If ... the statutory or regulatory provisions which evidence the public policy themselves provide a remedy for the wrongful discharge, provision of a further remedy under the public policy exception is unnecessary.” 87 Hawai'i 57, 63 , 951 P.2d 507, 513 (App.1998); see also Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co., 76 Hawai'i 454, 464 , 879 P.2d 1037, 1047 (1994) (noting that a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy cannot be asserted “where the policy sought to be vindicated is already embodied in a statute providing its own

2014In Takaki v. Allied Machinery Corporation, the ICA stated, “If . . . the statutory or regulatory provisions which evidence the public policy themselves provide a remedy for the wrongful discharge, provision of a further remedy under the public policy exception is unnecessary.” 87 Hawai#i 57, 63, 951 P.2d 507, 513 (App. 1998); see also Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co., 76 Hawai#i 454, 464, 879 P.2d 1037, 1047 (1994) (noting that a claim for wrongful -75- *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** termination in violation of public policy cannot be asserted “where the polic

2015Grace & Co., 461 U.S. at 766 , 103 S.Ct. 2177 )).

2015Grace & Co., 461 U.S. at 766 , 103 S.Ct. 2177 )).

2026Id. at 365-66, 14 P.3d at 1046-47 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).

2021Matter of Hawai#i State Teachers Ass'n, 140 Hawai#i 381, 400, 400 P.3d 582, 601 (2017) (brackets and ellipsis in original) (quoting Sause Bros., 77 Hawai#i at 193, 881 P.2d at 1261 (quoting Misco, 484 U.S. at 42 ))).

2021Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO v. Hawai#i- Holiday Pay (2003-022B), 125 Hawai#i 476, 490-91, 264 P.3d 655, 669-70 (App. 2011) (quoting Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pac., Hawai#i Regio, Marine Div. of Int'l Longshoremens & Warehousemen's Union v. Sause Bros., Inc., 77 Hawai#i 187, 193, 881 P.2d 1255, 1261 (App. 1994) (Sause Bros.)).

2015Id. at 754.

2014As this court noted in Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, 96 Hawai#i 408, 425-26, 32 P.3d 52, 69-70 (2001), retaliation claims are subject to a burden shifting analysis, in which: (1) the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that (a) he or she was engaged in a protected activity, (b) his or her employer subjected the employee to an adverse employment action; and (c) a causal link existed between the protected activity and the adverse action; (2) the burden then shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its decisio

2014See Edwards v. Honeywell, Inc., 960 F.2d 673, 674 (7th Cir.1992) (noting that the trial court “erred by granting summary judgment on grounds to which [the non-moving party] was given either an inadequate opportunity or no opportunity to respond”).

2014See Edwards v. Honeywell, Inc., 960 F.2d 673, 674 (7th Cir. 1992) (noting that the trial court “erred by granting summary judgment on grounds to which [the non-moving party] was given either an inadequate opportunity or no opportunity to respond”).

2011It has long been recognized in Hawai'i that where parties have agreed to arbitration, “they thereby assumed all the hazards of the arbitration process, including the risk that the arbitrators may make mistakes in the application of law and in their findings of fact.” Mars Constructors, Inc. v. Tropical Enterprises, Ltd., 51 Haw. 332, 336 , 460 P.2d 317, 319 (1969).

2011It has long been recognized in Hawai'i that where parties have agreed to arbitration, “they thereby assumed all the hazards of the arbitration process, including the risk that the arbitrators may make mistakes in the application of law and in their findings of fact.” Mars Constructors, Inc. v. Tropical Enterprises, Ltd., 51 Haw. 332, 336 , 460 P.2d 317, 319 (1969).

2009See Carroll v. Rye TP., 101 N.W. 894, 896 (N.D. 1904) (citations omitted) (" [C]ounsel relies on the maxims: `No one should suffer by the act of another' [and] `[f]or every wrong there is a remedy.' . . . [T]he maxims of jurisprudence are not intended to qualify the positive rules of law, but to aid in their just application.").

1998See, e.g., Co-Operators Ins. v. Allstate Rent-A-Car, 107 Nev. 17 , 804 P.2d 1050 (1991), in which the Nevada Supreme Court validated a rental agreement which provided that the renter’s insurance would be primarily liable.

1998See, e.g., Co-Operators Ins. v. Allstate Rent-A-Car, 107 Nev. 17 , 804 P.2d 1050 (1991), in which the Nevada Supreme Court validated a rental agreement which provided that the renter’s insurance would be primarily liable.

1994See also Excelsior Lodge Number One v. Eyecor, Ltd., 74 Haw. 210 , 847 P.2d 652 (1992).

1994See also Excelsior Lodge Number One v. Eyecor, Ltd., 74 Haw. 210 , 847 P.2d 652 (1992).

1982Similarly, the Supreme Court of Indiana, in Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249 , 297 N.E.2d 425 (1973), recognized and applied the public policy exception when an employee was retaliatorily discharged for filing a workmen’s compensation claim.

1982Similarly, the Supreme Court of Indiana, in Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249 , 297 N.E.2d 425 (1973), recognized and applied the public policy exception when an employee was retaliatorily discharged for filing a workmen’s compensation claim.