§378-33 Complaint against unlawful
suspension, discharge, or discrimination. (a) Any employee aggrieved by
an alleged unlawful suspension, discharge, or discrimination may file with the
department of labor and industrial relations a complaint in writing, stating
the name and address of the employer alleged to have committed the unlawful
suspension, discharge, or discrimination, and shall set forth the particulars
thereof and other information as may be required by the department.
(b) No complaint shall be filed after the
expiration of thirty days after the alleged act of unlawful suspension,
discharge, or discrimination, or after the employee learns of the suspension or
discharge, except that a complaint for an alleged act of unlawful discharge
under section [378-32(a)(2)] occurring while the aggrieved employee is still
physically or mentally incapacitated and unable to work also may be filed
before the expiration of thirty days after the date the aggrieved employee is
able to return to work. [L 1967, c 22, pt of §1; HRS §378-33; am L 1974, c 150,
§1; am L 1981, c 10, §2; am L 1984, c 196, §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case:
Puchert v. Agsalud, 677 P.2d 449 (Haw. 1984).
Puchert v. Agsalud, 677 P.2d 449 (Haw. 1984).
· cites it 28× “The primary issue involves the construction of a statute, HRS § 378-33. As construed by the director and the lower court, HRS § 378-33(b) requires the filing of a complaint of unlawful discharge from employment only after an employee is able to return to his former job, and not…”
Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai'i) Ltd., 879 P.2d 1037 (Haw. 1994).
· cites it 4× “2d 710 (1985), in construing HRS § 378-33(b) (1985), which establishes the time periods within which an employee must file an administrative complaint for wrongful discharge or suspension in violation of HRS § 378-32(2): The construction of this section allowing a hearing on the…”
Hummel v. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 749 F. Supp. 1023 (D. Haw. 1990).
· cites it 3× “On July 19, 1988, she filed a charge with the Hawaii Department of Labor (“DLIR”) under § 378-33 alleging that she was discharged solely because she suffered a “compensable” work injury in violation of HRS § 378-32(2).”
Ellison v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 938 F. Supp. 1503 (D. Haw. 1996).
· cites it 2× “; see also Haw.Rev.Stat. § 378-33 (aggrieved employee may file a complaint with the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations); Ross v.”
Singh v. Trs. of the Est. of Lunalilo, 779 F. Supp. 1265 (D. Haw. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Haw.Rev. Stat. § 378-33(a)-(b). Furthermore, the retaliatory discharge claim is subject to the same federal preemption arguments as Counts I — III.”
Mathern v. Edward D. Jones & Co. (Haw. App. 2026).
· cites it 4× “5 (1984) (construing predecessor version of HRS § 378-33(b): "Continuing a hearing, rather than dismissing a complaint, avoids the problem of having to re-file and re-process the same paperwork.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-33(a) — 1 case
Singh v. Trs. of the Est. of Lunalilo, 779 F. Supp. 1265 (D. Haw. 1991).
“Haw.Rev. Stat. § 378-33(a)-(b). Furthermore, the retaliatory discharge claim is subject to the same federal preemption arguments as Counts I — III.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-33(b) — 4 cases
Puchert v. Agsalud, 677 P.2d 449 (Haw. 1984).
“The primary issue involves the construction of a statute, HRS § 378-33. As construed by the director and the lower court, HRS § 378-33(b) requires the filing of a complaint of unlawful discharge from employment only after an employee is able to return to his former job, and not…”
Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai'i) Ltd., 879 P.2d 1037 (Haw. 1994).
“2d 710 (1985), in construing HRS § 378-33(b) (1985), which establishes the time periods within which an employee must file an administrative complaint for wrongful discharge or suspension in violation of HRS § 378-32(2): The construction of this section allowing a hearing on the…”
Hummel v. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 749 F. Supp. 1023 (D. Haw. 1990).
“On July 19, 1988, she filed a charge with the Hawaii Department of Labor (“DLIR”) under § 378-33 alleging that she was discharged solely because she suffered a “compensable” work injury in violation of HRS § 378-32(2).”
Mathern v. Edward D. Jones & Co. (Haw. App. 2026).
“5 (1984) (construing predecessor version of HRS § 378-33(b): "Continuing a hearing, rather than dismissing a complaint, avoids the problem of having to re-file and re-process the same paperwork.”
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.