Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-4 (2026)

Enforcement jurisdiction

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§378-4 Enforcement jurisdiction. The commission shall have jurisdiction over the subject of discriminatory practices made unlawful by this part. Any individual claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful discriminatory practice may file with the commission a complaint in accordance with the procedure established under chapter 368. [L 1981, c 94, pt of §2; am L 1989, c 386, §8]

Case Notes

In action alleging unlawful discharge in violation of §378-2, time for filing administrative complaint begins to run on date that employee is actually discharged, that is, on date that employment terminates. 76 H. 454, 879 P.2d 1037 (1994).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai'i) Ltd., 879 P.2d 1037 (Haw. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai'i) Ltd., 879 P.2d 1037 (Haw. 1994). · cites it 66× “Ross timely filed his administrative complaint with the DLIR HRS § 378-4(c) (1985), which was in effect at the time Ross filed his administrative complaint *1043 with the DLIR, provided that "[n]o complaint shall be filed after the expiration of ninety days after the date upon…”

Nelson v. Univ. of Hawai'i, 38 P.3d 95 (Haw. 2001). · cites it 8× “t only amended HRS § 386-5 to make an exception to the exclusive remedy provision of the workers' compensation law, but it also, inter alia, [15] amended Hawaii's HRS chapter 378 (prescribing discriminatory practices) by adding HRS § 378-3(10) (1993), which excepts victims of…”

Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 32 P.3d 52 (Haw. 2001). · cites it 2× “HRS § 378-4 (1993) states in part that "[t]he [HCRC] shall have jurisdiction over the subject of discriminatory practices made unlawful by this part [ (Part I, Discriminatory Practices) ]" and that "fa]ny individual claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful discriminatory…”

Mukaida v. Hawaii, 159 F. Supp. 2d 1211 (D. Haw. 2001). · cites it 3× “” Haw.Rev.Stat. § 378-4; see also Haw.Rev.Stat.”

Brown v. KFC Nat'l Mgmt. Co., 921 P.2d 146 (Haw. 1996). · cites it 2× “HRS § 378-4 (1993) provides in relevant part that ”[a]ny individual claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful discriminatory practice may file with the [HCRC] a complaint in accordance with the procedure established under [HRS] chapter 368.”

Furukawa v. Honolulu Zoological Soc'y, 936 P.2d 643 (Haw. 1997). · cites it 2× “See HRS Chapter 368; HRS § 378-4 (Supp.1996). As a remedial statute designed to enforce civil rights protections and remedy the effects of discrimination, Chapter 368 should be liberally construed in order to accomplish that purpose.”

Haas v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 914 A.2d 735 (Md. 2007). “Compare Haw.Rev.Stat. § 378-4(c), with Md. Code, Art.”

Wright v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 142 P.3d 265 (Haw. 2006). · cites it 2× “Wright brought suit against Home Depot subsequent to receiving a "right-to-sue” notice from the Hawai'i Civil Rights Commission (HCRC), which, pursuant to HRS § 378-4 (Supp.2005), "shall have jurisdiction over the subject of discriminatory practices made unlawful by this part.”

Hale v. Hawaii Publications, Inc., 468 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Haw. 2006). · cites it 2× “The- practical effect of the amendment was recorded in the Senate Committee Report: “[wjithin 180 days after the alleged injury, jurisdiction rests primarily with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission; however, after 180 days but within the tort statute of limitations, the employee…”

Lui v. Intercontinental Hotels Corp.(Hawaii), 634 F. Supp. 684 (D. Haw. 1986). · cites it 2× “§ 378-4. In a complaint filed in state court and removed to this court, plaintiff does not plead under that statute but instead alleges common law counts of sexual assault and battery, emotional distress, negligent hiring and constructive discharge.”

Kosegarten v. Dep't of Prosecuting Attorney, 892 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (D. Haw. 2012). · cites it 3× “A person aggrieved by one of the unlawful practices identified in, inter alia, § 378-2, may file a complaint with the HCRC under the procedures identified in Haw.”

Yang v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, 284 P.3d 946 (Haw. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “The legislature at the same time added HRS § 378-3(10), which excepts victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault from having to file discrimination complaints with the commission under HRS § 378-4. Because the exemption in HRS § 368-17(b) would no longer apply to these…”

Show all 21 citing cases →

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-4(a) — 1 case

Lui v. Intercontinental Hotels Corp.(Hawaii), 634 F. Supp. 684 (D. Haw. 1986). “§ 378-4. In a complaint filed in state court and removed to this court, plaintiff does not plead under that statute but instead alleges common law counts of sexual assault and battery, emotional distress, negligent hiring and constructive discharge.”

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-4(c) — 2 cases

Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai'i) Ltd., 879 P.2d 1037 (Haw. 1994). “Ross timely filed his administrative complaint with the DLIR HRS § 378-4(c) (1985), which was in effect at the time Ross filed his administrative complaint *1043 with the DLIR, provided that "[n]o complaint shall be filed after the expiration of ninety days after the date upon…”

Haas v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 914 A.2d 735 (Md. 2007). “Compare Haw.Rev.Stat. § 378-4(c), with Md. Code, Art.”

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-4(e) — 1 case

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.