[PART II.
REMEDIES]
Revision Note
Part II designation added by revisor pursuant to §23G-15.
Case Notes
No intentional infliction of emotional distress as
commission's act of sending official letter to settle complaint if appellant
paid monetary damages and took out newspaper ad not "outrageous"
conduct. 88 H. 85, 962 P.2d 344 (1998).
The commission is subject to a duty to follow its own
administrative rules, utilizing reasonable care, and was potentially negligent
for instituting legal action barred by its own administrative rules. 88 H. 85,
962 P.2d 344 (1998).
Where appellant's counterclaim lacked any allegation of
physical injury to appellant or another as a result of the conduct of the
commission, action for negligent infliction of emotional distress could not be
maintained. 88 H. 85, 962 P.2d 344 (1998).
§368-11 Complaint against unlawful
discrimination. (a) The commission shall have jurisdiction over the
subject of discriminatory practices made unlawful by part I of chapter 489,
chapter 515, part I of chapter 378, and this chapter; provided that the
commission shall not have jurisdiction over claims within the scope of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L. 101-476, as amended. Any
individual claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful discriminatory
practice may file with the commission's executive director a complaint in
writing that shall state the name and address of the person or party alleged to
have committed the unlawful discriminatory practice complained of, set forth
the particulars thereof, and contain other information as may be required by
the commission. The attorney general, or the commission upon its own
initiative, may, in like manner, make and file a complaint.
(b) A complaint may be filed on behalf of a
class by the attorney general or the commission, and a complaint so filed may
be investigated, conciliated, heard, and litigated on a class action basis.
(c) No complaint shall be filed after the
expiration of one hundred eighty days after the date:
(1) Upon which the alleged unlawful discriminatory
practice occurred; or
(2) Of the last occurrence in a pattern of ongoing
discriminatory practice.
(d) For the purposes of this chapter
"unlawful discriminatory practice" means an unfair discriminatory
practice or like terms, as may be used in part I of chapter 489, chapter 515,
or part I of chapter 378. [L 1989, c 386, pt of §1; am L 1991, c 252, §3; am L
2001, c 55, §17(2), (3); am L 2021, c 164, §3]
Law Journals and Reviews
Viability of the Continuing Violation Theory in Hawai`i
Employment Discrimination Law in the Aftermath of Ledbetter. 30 UH L. Rev.
423 (2008).
Case Notes
Plaintiff's submission of the pre-complaint questionnaire to
the Hawaii civil rights commission constituted the filing of a complaint for
purposes of calculating the state filing deadlines; plaintiff's complaint for
state law sexual harassment was not filed with the commission in a timely
manner. 468 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (2006).
The "single-filing" or "piggyback" rule
applied under Hawaii law, where the "dual-filed" equal employment
opportunity commission administrative complaints of four plaintiffs-intervenors
were filed after the 180-day deadline in subsection (c) and the
plaintiffs-intervenors sought to "piggyback" on the timely
administrative complaints of three other plaintiffs-intervenors. 504 F. Supp.
2d 1008 (2007).
Other than a single statement that plaintiff claimed was an
example of age discrimination, plaintiff did not provide any further
clarification as to which specific acts comprised plaintiff's hostile work
environment claim. Moreover, there appeared to be no allegation of any related
conduct that occurred within the required time frame to file an age
discrimination charge. Thus, the court rejected plaintiff's assertion that
plaintiff's age discrimination claim was timely based upon a continuing violation
theory. 140 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (2015).
Where original complaint was timely filed under subsection
(c), amendment of complaint pursuant to Hawaii administrative rule §12-46-6.1
to add agent of employer responsible for alleged discriminatory conduct also
did not violate statute of limitations under this section. 89 H. 269, 971 P.2d
1104 (1999).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
32
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case:
SCI Mgmt. Corp. v. Sims, 71 P.3d 389 (Haw. 2003).
SCI Mgmt. Corp. v. Sims, 71 P.3d 389 (Haw. 2003).
· cites it 12× “See HRS §§ 368-11 & 368-12 (1993). Hence, all complaints must be administratively initiated and no right to a judicial action under HRS § 368-12 exists, except in HRS § 515-9 (1993) proceedings involving housing discrimination, where one is expressly given.”
Sam Teague, Ltd. v. Hawai'i Civil Rights Comm'n, 971 P.2d 1104 (Haw. 1999).
· cites it 10× “On appeal, Employer contends that the circuit court erred by affirming the Commission’s final decision because: (1) Shaw’s amended complaint was untimely filed violating the statute of limitations in HRS § 368-11 (1993); (2) Employer’s policy prohibiting any type of extended…”
Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai'i) Ltd., 879 P.2d 1037 (Haw. 1994).
· cites it 4× “HRS § 368-11(c)(1) (Supp.1992) provides that no "complaint shall be filed [with the Civil Rights Commission] after the expiration of one hundred eighty days after the date .”
Brown v. KFC Nat'l Mgmt. Co., 921 P.2d 146 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 4× “)); HRS § 368-11(b) (1993) (“A complaint may be filed on behalf of a class by the attorney general or the [HCRC], and a complaint so filed may be investigated, conciliated, heard, and litigated on a class action basis.”
Douglass v. Pflueger Hawaii, Inc., 135 P.3d 129 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 2× “) Pursuant to HRS § 368-11(a) (Supp.2004), the HCRC has jurisdiction, inter alia, “over the subject of discriminatory practices made unlawful by .”
Lalau v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 938 F. Supp. 2d 1000 (D. Haw. 2013).
· cites it 3× “See Haw.Rev.Stat. §§ 368-11, 368-12. However, because there is no dispute that Lalau submitted a charge to the HCRC, and because the City does not contend on the present motion that- Lalau failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his section 378-2 claims,…”
Mukaida v. Hawaii, 159 F. Supp. 2d 1211 (D. Haw. 2001).
· cites it 2× “§ 378-4; see also Haw.Rev.Stat. § 368-11. Section 368-12 allows the HCRC to issue a right-to-sue letter.”
Jackson v. Foodland Super Mkt., Ltd., 958 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (D. Haw. 2013).
· cites it 5× “) Defendant argues that Plaintiff is time-barred from basing her discrimination claim on any events that took place prior to September, 18, 2010.”
Aoyagi v. Straub Clinic & Hosp., Inc., 140 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (D. Haw. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Where, as here, a plaintiff files charges with both the EEOC and the HCRC, a discrimination charge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the ADEA must be filed with the EEOC within 300 days after the alleged discriminatory event.”
Hale v. Hawaii Publications, Inc., 468 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Haw. 2006).
· cites it 2× “§ 368-11(c). However, the Hawaii legislature carved out an exception to the filing requirement for sexual harassment claims.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 368-11(a) — 5 cases
SCI Mgmt. Corp. v. Sims, 71 P.3d 389 (Haw. 2003).
“See HRS §§ 368-11 & 368-12 (1993). Hence, all complaints must be administratively initiated and no right to a judicial action under HRS § 368-12 exists, except in HRS § 515-9 (1993) proceedings involving housing discrimination, where one is expressly given.”
Douglass v. Pflueger Hawaii, Inc., 135 P.3d 129 (Haw. 2006).
“) Pursuant to HRS § 368-11(a) (Supp.2004), the HCRC has jurisdiction, inter alia, “over the subject of discriminatory practices made unlawful by .”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 368-11(b) — 1 case
Brown v. KFC Nat'l Mgmt. Co., 921 P.2d 146 (Haw. 1996).
“)); HRS § 368-11(b) (1993) (“A complaint may be filed on behalf of a class by the attorney general or the [HCRC], and a complaint so filed may be investigated, conciliated, heard, and litigated on a class action basis.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 368-11(c) — 9 cases
Sam Teague, Ltd. v. Hawai'i Civil Rights Comm'n, 971 P.2d 1104 (Haw. 1999).
“On appeal, Employer contends that the circuit court erred by affirming the Commission’s final decision because: (1) Shaw’s amended complaint was untimely filed violating the statute of limitations in HRS § 368-11 (1993); (2) Employer’s policy prohibiting any type of extended…”
Hale v. Hawaii Publications, Inc., 468 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Haw. 2006).
“§ 368-11(c). However, the Hawaii legislature carved out an exception to the filing requirement for sexual harassment claims.”
Jackson v. Foodland Super Mkt., Ltd., 958 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (D. Haw. 2013).
“) Defendant argues that Plaintiff is time-barred from basing her discrimination claim on any events that took place prior to September, 18, 2010.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 368-11(c)(1) — 2 cases
Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai'i) Ltd., 879 P.2d 1037 (Haw. 1994).
“HRS § 368-11(c)(1) (Supp.1992) provides that no "complaint shall be filed [with the Civil Rights Commission] after the expiration of one hundred eighty days after the date .”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 368-11(c)(2) — 1 case
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 368-11(d) — 1 case
Brown v. KFC Nat'l Mgmt. Co., 921 P.2d 146 (Haw. 1996).
“)); HRS § 368-11(b) (1993) (“A complaint may be filed on behalf of a class by the attorney general or the [HCRC], and a complaint so filed may be investigated, conciliated, heard, and litigated on a class action basis.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 368-11(e) — 1 case
Lalau v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 938 F. Supp. 2d 1000 (D. Haw. 2013).
“See Haw.Rev.Stat. §§ 368-11, 368-12. However, because there is no dispute that Lalau submitted a charge to the HCRC, and because the City does not contend on the present motion that- Lalau failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his section 378-2 claims,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.