retaliation claim in Hawaii

2003In Hawai`i, "[a] plaintiff may establish pretext `either directly by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that the employer's proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.'" Shoppe v. Gucci Am., Inc., 94 Hawai`i 368, 379, 14 P.3d 1049, 1060 (2000) (citations omitted). [16] While the issue could be pertinent to Plaintiff's retaliation claim under Title VII, Plaintiff does not mention the retaliation claim in her opening brief.

2002Cf. Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 96 Hawai`i 408, 425, 32 P.3d 52, 69 (2001) (noting that, "[n]ot having previously dealt with a retaliation claim under HRS ง 378-2..., we may look in construing HRS ง 378-2, `to interpretations of analogous federal laws by the federal courts for guidance'" (quoting Shoppe v. Gucci Am., Inc., 94 Hawai`i 368, 377, 14 P.3d 1049, 1058 (2000)) (additional citations omitted)); State v. Crisostomo, 94 Hawai`i 282, 287-88, 12 P.3d 873, 878-79 (2000) (noting that, "[b]ecause [Hawai`i Rule of Penal Procedure] Rule 24(c) [(1996) ] is nearly identical to it

2022"There is no requirement that a retaliation claim be based on a successful discrimination claim." Gonsalves v. Nissan Motor Corp., 100 Hawai'i 149 , 162–63, 58 P.3d 1196 , 1209–10 (2002) (first citing Aloha Islandair Inc. v. Tseu, 128 F.3d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir. 1997) (observing that "the Hawai#i statute prohibiting retaliation does not condition the retaliation claim on the merit of the underlying discrimination claim"); then citing Moyo v. Gomez, 32 F.3d 1382, 1385 (9th Cir. 1994), amended by 40 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 1994) (stating that under Title VII it is not necessary that the employment prac

2002See Aloha Islandair Inc. v. Tseu, 128 F.3d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir.1997) (observing that “the Hawaii statute prohibiting retaliation does not condition the retaliation claim on the merit of the underlying discrimination claim”); Moyo, 32 F.3d at 1385 (stating that under Title VII it is not necessary that the employment practice actually be unlawful).

2014Thus, this court explained that "the [only] issue remaining is [the defendant’s] individual liability with respect to the retaliation claim.” Id. .In any event, inasmuch as the defendants were both co-owners of the company that employed plaintiff, they may have been "employers” under HRS § 378-1. .

2002Cf. Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 96 Hawai`i 408, 425, 32 P.3d 52, 69 (2001) (noting that, "[n]ot having previously dealt with a retaliation claim under HRS ง 378-2..., we may look in construing HRS ง 378-2, `to interpretations of analogous federal laws by the federal courts for guidance'" (quoting Shoppe v. Gucci Am., Inc., 94 Hawai`i 368, 377, 14 P.3d 1049, 1058 (2000)) (additional citations omitted)); State v. Crisostomo, 94 Hawai`i 282, 287-88, 12 P.3d 873, 878-79 (2000) (noting that, "[b]ecause [Hawai`i Rule of Penal Procedure] Rule 24(c) [(1996) ] is nearly identical to it

2022"There is no requirement that a retaliation claim be based on a successful discrimination claim." Gonsalves v. Nissan Motor Corp., 100 Hawai'i 149 , 162–63, 58 P.3d 1196 , 1209–10 (2002) (first citing Aloha Islandair Inc. v. Tseu, 128 F.3d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir. 1997) (observing that "the Hawai#i statute prohibiting retaliation does not condition the retaliation claim on the merit of the underlying discrimination claim"); then citing Moyo v. Gomez, 32 F.3d 1382, 1385 (9th Cir. 1994), amended by 40 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 1994) (stating that under Title VII it is not necessary that the employment prac

2002Cf. Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 96 Hawai`i 408, 425, 32 P.3d 52, 69 (2001) (noting that, "[n]ot having previously dealt with a retaliation claim under HRS ง 378-2..., we may look in construing HRS ง 378-2, `to interpretations of analogous federal laws by the federal courts for guidance'" (quoting Shoppe v. Gucci Am., Inc., 94 Hawai`i 368, 377, 14 P.3d 1049, 1058 (2000)) (additional citations omitted)); State v. Crisostomo, 94 Hawai`i 282, 287-88, 12 P.3d 873, 878-79 (2000) (noting that, "[b]ecause [Hawai`i Rule of Penal Procedure] Rule 24(c) [(1996) ] is nearly identical to it

2002Cf. Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 96 Hawai'i 408, 425 , 32 P.3d 52, 69 (2001) (noting that, “[n]ot having previously dealt with a retaliation claim under HRS § 878-2 ..., we may look in construing HRS § 378-2, ‘to interpretations of analogous federal laws by the federal courts for guidance’ ” (quoting Shoppe v. Gucci Am., Inc., 94 Hawai'i 368, 377 , 14 P.3d 1049, 1058 (2000)) (additional citations omitted)); State v. Crisostomo, 94 Hawai'i 282, 287-88 , 12 P.3d 873, 878-79 (2000) (noting that, “[bjecause [Hawaii Rule of Penal Procedure] Rule 24(c) [ (1996)] is nearly identical t

2001Under Title VII 34 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-1 to 2000e-17 (1994), an analogous federal law, federal courts have held that, in a prima facie case of retaliation, “an employee must show that (1) he [or she] engaged in a protected activity; (2) his [or her] employer subjected him [or her] to an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal link exist[ed] between the protected activity and the adverse action.” Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir.2000) (citing Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1464 (9th Cir.1994)).

2001Under Title VII 34 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-1 to 2000e-17 (1994), an analogous federal law, federal courts have held that, in a prima facie case of retaliation, “an employee must show that (1) he [or she] engaged in a protected activity; (2) his [or her] employer subjected him [or her] to an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal link exist[ed] between the protected activity and the adverse action.” Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir.2000) (citing Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1464 (9th Cir.1994)).

2001Consistent with the approach under Title VII and the foregoing cases involving HRS § 378-2, we hold that a retaliation claim under HRS § 378-2(2) is subject to the following three-part test: (1) the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of such retaliation by demonstrating that (a) the plaintiff (i) “has opposed any practice forbidden by [HRS chapter 378, Employment Practices, Part I, Discriminatory Practices] or (ii) has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding respecting the discriminatory practices prohibited under this part,” HRS § 378-2(2), (b) his or her “e

2001Not having previously dealt with a retaliation claim under HRS § 378-2(2) and (3), we may look, in construing HRS § 378-2, “to interpretations of analogous federal laws by the federal courts for guidance.” Shoppe v. Gucci Am., Inc., 94 Hawai'i 368, 377 , 14 P.3d 1049, 1058 (2000) (citing Furukawa, 85 Hawai'i 7, 13 , 936 P.2d 643, 649 , reconsideration denied, 85 Hawai'i 196 , 940 P.2d 403 (1997), and Sam Teague, Ltd. v. Hawai'i Civil Rights Comm’n, 89 Hawai'i 269 , 279 n. 10, 971 P.2d 1104 , 1114 n. 10 (1999) (citation omitted) (parenthetical explanations omitted)).

2001Not having previously dealt with a retaliation claim under HRS § 378-2(2) and (3), we may look, in construing HRS § 378-2, “to interpretations of analogous federal laws by the federal courts for guidance.” Shoppe v. Gucci Am., Inc., 94 Hawai'i 368, 377 , 14 P.3d 1049, 1058 (2000) (citing Furukawa, 85 Hawai'i 7, 13 , 936 P.2d 643, 649 , reconsideration denied, 85 Hawai'i 196 , 940 P.2d 403 (1997), and Sam Teague, Ltd. v. Hawai'i Civil Rights Comm’n, 89 Hawai'i 269 , 279 n. 10, 971 P.2d 1104 , 1114 n. 10 (1999) (citation omitted) (parenthetical explanations omitted)).