Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-61 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of July 2026

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

[PART V.] WHISTLEBLOWERS' PROTECTION ACT

Revision Note

In this part, "part" substituted for "chapter" pursuant to §23G-15.

Law Journals and Reviews

Wrongful Termination Law in Hawaii. V HBJ, no. 13, at 71 (2001).

Employee Rights Under Judicial Scrutiny: Prevalent Policy Discourse and the Hawai`i Supreme Court. 14 UH L. Rev. 189 (1992).

Confidentiality Breeds Contempt: A First Amendment Challenge to Confidential Ethics Commission Proceedings of the City & County of Honolulu. 18 UH L. Rev. 797 (1996).

Case Notes

Respondent's claims for discharge in violation of public policy and in violation of the Hawaii Whistleblower [sic] Protection Act were not preempted by the Railway Labor Act. 512 U.S. 246 (1994).

Plaintiff's Hawaii Whistleblowers' Protection Act and Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc. claims were preempted by §1305(a)(1) of Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. 870 F. Supp. 295 (1994).

The Act does not provide employees with a protected property interest, as it does not create an enforceable expectation of continued public employment. 120 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (2000).

Plaintiff could not maintain the present action where plaintiff had agreed to "forever release, acquit, and discharge" the claims in the mutual release and settlement agreement in plaintiff's first action. 686 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (2010).

Portions of plaintiff's Whistleblowers' Protection Act claims based on the alleged sexual orientation statements and the complaint and investigation regarding plaintiff's alleged discrimination against two individuals were time-barred. 892 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (2012).

Protection afforded under this Act not restricted to at-will employees. 74 H. 235, 842 P.2d 634 (1992).

Where plaintiff was removed from project, State did not violate the Act or the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it reassigned the project to someone else. 76 H. 332, 876 P.2d 1300 (1994).

Where union's retaliation claims provided a basis for both a prohibited practice claim and claims under the Hawaii Whistleblowers' Protection Act and article I, §4 of the Hawaii constitution, the intermediate court of appeals properly applied the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to the retaliation claims. 133 H. 188, 325 P.3d 600 (2014).

A. General Provisions

Note

Sections 378-61 to 378-69 designated as Subpart A by L 2011, c 166, §3.

§378-61 Definitions. As used in this part:

"Employee" means a person who performs a service for wages or other remuneration under a contract for hire, written or oral, express or implied. Employee includes a person employed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.

"Employer" means a person who has one or more employees. Employer includes an agent of an employer or of the State or a political subdivision of the State.

"Person" means an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, association, or any other legal entity.

"Public body" means:

(1) A state officer, employee, agency, department, division, bureau, board, commission, committee, council, authority, or other body in the executive branch of state government;

(2) An agency, board, commission, committee, council, member, or employee of the legislative branch of the state government;

(3) A county, city, intercounty, intercity, or regional governing body, a council, special district, or municipal corporation, or a board, department, commission, committee, council, agency, or any member or employee thereof;

(4) Any other body which is created by state or local authority or which is primarily funded by or through state or local authority, or any member or employee of that body;

(5) A law enforcement agency or any member or employee of a law enforcement agency; or

(6) The judiciary and any member or employee of the judiciary.

"Public employee" means any employee of the State or any county, or the political subdivision and agencies of the State or any county, any employee under contract with the State or any county, any civil service employee, any probationary or provisional employee of the State or county, and any employee of any general contractor or subcontractor undertaking the execution of a contract with a governmental contracting agency, as defined in section 104-1.

"Public employer" means the State and any county, the political subdivisions and agencies of the State and any county, and any general contractor or subcontractor undertaking the execution of a contract with a governmental contracting agency, as defined in section 104-1, and includes any agent thereof. [L 1987, c 267, pt of §1; am L 2011, c 166, §5]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 29 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). · cites it 2× “3187 (2003); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-61 (1993); Ky. Rev.”

United States Ex Rel. Lockyer v. Hawaii Pac. Health, 490 F. Supp. 2d 1062 (D. Haw. 2007). · cites it 11× “§ 3730 (h) and Haw.Rev.Stat. § 378-61, et seq. Count IV: Claim for punitive damages.”

Greer v. Baker., 369 P.3d 832 (Haw. 2016). · cites it 2× “Greer raised three claims for relief: Count I—violation of the Hawai'i Whistleblowers Protection Act (HWPA) (Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 378-61 to 378-70); Count II—intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); and Count III—negligent infliction of emotional distress…”

Brown v. KFC Nat'l Mgmt. Co., 921 P.2d 146 (Haw. 1996). · cites it 2× “Lou raised derivative claims of loss of consortium (fourth claim for relief) and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress (fifth claim for relief). The Alabanzas are not parties to the seventh claim for relief, in which Larry Brown alleges a violation of the…”

Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246 (1994). “His complaint included two wrongful-discharge torts — discharge in violation of the public policy expressed in the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 and implementing regulations, and discharge in violation of Hawaii’s Whistleblower Protection Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 378-61 to 378-69…”

Crosby v. State of Hawai'i Dep't of Budget & Fin., 876 P.2d 1300 (Haw. 1994). · cites it 2× “8 On July 14, 1989, Crosby filed a verified complaint alleging that his removal from the project violated the Hawai'i Whis-tleblowers’ Protection Act (“HWPA”), HRS §§ 378-61 to -69 (Supp.1992), and requesting that the court order his reinstatement to the project and enjoin any…”

Winters v. Houston Chronicle Publ'g Co., 795 S.W.2d 723 (Tex. 1990). “1990); Haw.Rev.Stat. §§ 378-61 — 378-69 (1988); Palmateer v.”

Campbell v. Dep't of Human Servs., 349 F. Supp. 3d 1019 (D. Haw. 2018). · cites it 4× “See Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 378-61 to 378-70. Campbell focuses on the language protecting public employees who report violations of "a federal .”

Marlow v. AMR Servs. Corp., 870 F. Supp. 295 (D. Haw. 1994). · cites it 2× “On April 2, 1993, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Second Circuit Court, State of Hawaii, alleging that he was fired by Defendants because of his raising of the “safety concerns,” and in an attempt to prevent Plaintiff from reporting the purported safety violations to public…”

Collette v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hosp., 132 F. Supp. 2d 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). “); Haw.Rev.Stat. §§ 378-61 et seq. (1994); Me.”

Norris v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 842 P.2d 634 (Haw. 1992). “8 Norris’ complaint alleges that defendants “directed, confirmed or ratified” the acts of HAL’s employees resulting in his discharge in violation of public policy as articulated in the Federal Aviation Act and the FAR (count I), and in the Hawaii Whistleblowers’ Protection Act…”

Kosegarten v. Dep't of Prosecuting Attorney, 892 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (D. Haw. 2012). · cites it 2× “Chapter 378 (“Count IV”); a Whistleblowers’ Protection Act claim against the County pursuant to Haw. Rev.Stat. § 378-61, et seq. (“Count V”); and a defamation claim against Defendant Tate (“Count VI”).”

Show all 29 citing cases →

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.