§368-13 Investigation and conciliation of
complaint. (a) After the filing of a complaint, or whenever it appears to
the commission that an unlawful discriminatory practice may have been
committed, the commission's executive director shall make an investigation in
connection therewith. At any time after the filing of a complaint but prior to
the issuance of a determination as to whether there is or is not reasonable
cause to believe that part I of chapter 489, chapter 515, part I of chapter
378, or this chapter has been violated, the parties may agree to resolve the
complaint through a predetermination settlement.
(b) The executive director shall issue a
determination of whether or not there is reasonable cause to believe that an
unlawful discriminatory practice has occurred within one-hundred and eighty
days from the date of filing a complaint unless the commission grants an
extension of time to issue a determination.
(c) If the executive director makes a
determination that there is no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful
discriminatory practice has occurred in a complaint filed, the executive
director shall promptly notify the parties in writing. The notice to
complainant shall indicate also that the complainant may bring a civil action
as provided under section 368-12.
(d) When the executive director determines
after the investigation that there is reasonable cause to believe that an
unlawful discriminatory practice within the commission's jurisdiction has been
committed, the executive director shall immediately endeavor to eliminate any
alleged unlawful discriminatory practice by informal methods such as
conference, conciliation, and persuasion.
(e) Where the executive director has
determined that there is reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful
discriminatory practice has occurred and has been unable to secure from the
respondent a conciliation agreement acceptable to the commission within
one-hundred and eighty days of the filing of the complaint unless the
commission has granted an extension of time, the executive director shall
demand that the respondent cease the unlawful discriminatory practice. The
executive director's determination that a final conciliation demand is to be
made shall be subject to reconsideration by the commission on its own
initiative but shall not be subject to judicial review. The executive director
may demand appropriate affirmative action as, in the judgment of the executive
director, will effectuate the purpose of this chapter, and include a
requirement for reporting on the manner of compliance. [L 1989, c 386, pt of
§1; am L 1991, c 252, §4; am L 2001, c 55, §17(4)]
Case Notes
The commission did not exceed its statutory authority under
subsection (b) and Hawaii administrative rule §12-46-12(f) by granting four
extensions of the investigation into complainant’s complaint; under the statute
and rule, extensions are authorized and the number is not limited. 88 H. 10,
960 P.2d 1218 (1998).
Claim for negligent and/or intentional infliction of
emotional distress against Hawaii civil rights commission not barred under
§662-15(1), as acts of investigating complaint, instituting suit based on
finding of reasonable cause, and sending demand letter were part of routine
operations of commission and did not involve broad policy considerations
encompassed within the discretionary function exception. 88 H. 85, 962 P.2d
344 (1998).
Notes of Decisions
SCI Mgmt. Corp. v. Sims, 71 P.3d 389 (Haw. 2003).
· cites it 16× “" HRS § 368-13(a) (1993). [5] If the executive director determines that there is no reasonable cause, he or she shall promptly notify the parties in writing, and the complainant may bring a civil action.”
Steinberg v. Hoshijo, 960 P.2d 1218 (Haw. 1998).
· cites it 8× “HRS § 368-13 (1993) governs the HCRC’s investigation and conciliation of a complaint, providing in pertinent part that: *16 (a) After the filing of a complaint, or whenever it appears to the commission that an unlawful discriminatory practice may have been committed, the…”
RGIS Inventory Specialist v. Hawai'i Civil Rights Comm'n, 86 P.3d 449 (Haw. 2004).
· cites it 8× “” RGIS is incorrect for three reasons. First, the Executive Director’s reasonable cause determinations and conciliation efforts occur before any contested case hearing, and therefore do not constitute “adjudication.”
Morning Hill Foods, LLC v. Hoshijo, 259 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (D. Haw. 2017).
· cites it 6× “statutory deadline under HRS § 368-13 (b) had been extended on six (6) separate occasions violates the Constitution of the United States; C.”
Takaki v. Allied Mach. Corp., 951 P.2d 507 (Haw. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “See HRS §§ 368-13 and -12 (1993). On October 10, 1991, Takaki amended his June 6, 1991 HCRC handicapped discrimination complaint.”
Hozey v. Cellco P'ship (D. Haw. 2020).
· cites it 3× “If the HCRC determines that there is no reasonable cause to believe an unlawful practice has 1Accordingly, the Court and the parties agree that the Court may consider the EEOC Charge of Discrimination and right-to-sue letter, which are attached to the motion to dismiss, because…”
Hawai'i Tech. Academy v. LE. (Haw. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Act 386 also created “Remedies” for the HCRC (now Part II of Chapter 368), including HRS § 368-11 (Complaint against unlawful discrimination); HRS § 368-12 (Notice of right to sue); HRS § 368-13 (Investigation and conciliation of complaint); HRS § 368-14 (Commission hearings);…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 368-13(a) — 2 cases
SCI Mgmt. Corp. v. Sims, 71 P.3d 389 (Haw. 2003).
“" HRS § 368-13(a) (1993). [5] If the executive director determines that there is no reasonable cause, he or she shall promptly notify the parties in writing, and the complainant may bring a civil action.”
RGIS Inventory Specialist v. Hawai'i Civil Rights Comm'n, 86 P.3d 449 (Haw. 2004).
“” RGIS is incorrect for three reasons. First, the Executive Director’s reasonable cause determinations and conciliation efforts occur before any contested case hearing, and therefore do not constitute “adjudication.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 368-13(b) — 2 cases
Morning Hill Foods, LLC v. Hoshijo, 259 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (D. Haw. 2017).
“statutory deadline under HRS § 368-13 (b) had been extended on six (6) separate occasions violates the Constitution of the United States; C.”
Steinberg v. Hoshijo, 960 P.2d 1218 (Haw. 1998).
“HRS § 368-13 (1993) governs the HCRC’s investigation and conciliation of a complaint, providing in pertinent part that: *16 (a) After the filing of a complaint, or whenever it appears to the commission that an unlawful discriminatory practice may have been committed, the…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 368-13(c) — 3 cases
SCI Mgmt. Corp. v. Sims, 71 P.3d 389 (Haw. 2003).
“" HRS § 368-13(a) (1993). [5] If the executive director determines that there is no reasonable cause, he or she shall promptly notify the parties in writing, and the complainant may bring a civil action.”
RGIS Inventory Specialist v. Hawai'i Civil Rights Comm'n, 86 P.3d 449 (Haw. 2004).
“” RGIS is incorrect for three reasons. First, the Executive Director’s reasonable cause determinations and conciliation efforts occur before any contested case hearing, and therefore do not constitute “adjudication.”
Hozey v. Cellco P'ship (D. Haw. 2020).
“If the HCRC determines that there is no reasonable cause to believe an unlawful practice has 1Accordingly, the Court and the parties agree that the Court may consider the EEOC Charge of Discrimination and right-to-sue letter, which are attached to the motion to dismiss, because…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 368-13(d) — 1 case
SCI Mgmt. Corp. v. Sims, 71 P.3d 389 (Haw. 2003).
“" HRS § 368-13(a) (1993). [5] If the executive director determines that there is no reasonable cause, he or she shall promptly notify the parties in writing, and the complainant may bring a civil action.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 368-13(e) — 2 cases
SCI Mgmt. Corp. v. Sims, 71 P.3d 389 (Haw. 2003).
“" HRS § 368-13(a) (1993). [5] If the executive director determines that there is no reasonable cause, he or she shall promptly notify the parties in writing, and the complainant may bring a civil action.”
RGIS Inventory Specialist v. Hawai'i Civil Rights Comm'n, 86 P.3d 449 (Haw. 2004).
“” RGIS is incorrect for three reasons. First, the Executive Director’s reasonable cause determinations and conciliation efforts occur before any contested case hearing, and therefore do not constitute “adjudication.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 368-13(f) — 1 case
Steinberg v. Hoshijo, 960 P.2d 1218 (Haw. 1998).
“HRS § 368-13 (1993) governs the HCRC’s investigation and conciliation of a complaint, providing in pertinent part that: *16 (a) After the filing of a complaint, or whenever it appears to the commission that an unlawful discriminatory practice may have been committed, the…”
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.