§378-63 Civil actions for injunctive relief
or damages. (a) A person who alleges a violation of this part may bring a
civil action for appropriate injunctive relief, or actual damages, or both
within two years after the occurrence of the alleged violation of this part.
(b) An action commenced pursuant to subsection
(a) may be brought in the circuit court for the circuit where the alleged
violation occurred, where the complainant resides, or where the person against
whom the civil complaint is filed resides or has a principal place of business.
(c) As used in subsection (a),
"damages" means damages for injury or loss caused by each violation
of this part, including reasonable attorney fees. [L 1987, c 267, pt of §1; am
L 2002, c 56, §3]
Case Notes
Plaintiff's state whistleblower claim under §378-62 barred,
where plaintiff did not file complaint until well after the ninety-day period
after the most recent alleged violation of the whistleblowers' protection act.
75 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (1999).
Count of complaint alleging that plaintiff was wrongfully
discharged in violation of 31 U.S.C. §3730(h) of the False Claims Act was
time-barred, where the court found that the Hawaii Whistleblowers' Protection
Act provided the state cause of action most closely analogous to a 31 U.S.C.
§3730(h) claim for retaliatory discharge, and thus applied a ninety-day statute
of limitations to plaintiff's claim for retaliatory discharge. 362 F. Supp. 2d
1203 (2005).
Plaintiff's Whistleblowers' Protection Act claim was
time-barred, where plaintiff took more than two years after the date of the
last adverse action that plaintiff identified as relevant to the lawsuit to
file suit. 938 F. Supp. 2d 1000 (2013).
Notes of Decisions
Lalau v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 938 F. Supp. 2d 1000 (D. Haw. 2013).
· cites it 4× “See Haw.Rev.Stat. § 378-63 (“A person who alleges a violation of this part may bring a civil action for appropriate injunctive relief, or actual damages, or both within two years after the occurrence of the alleged violation of this part.”
Aoyagi v. Straub Clinic & Hosp., Inc., 140 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (D. Haw. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-63 (a). Even assuming, however, that Plaintiffs HWPA claim is not barred by the statute of limitations, it appears to be premised upon the exact same facts as those of her retaliation claim and therefore must fail on the same grounds as those discussed…”
United Pub. Workers, AFSCME, Local 636, AFL-CIO v. Abercrombie., 325 P.3d 600 (Haw. 2014).
· cites it 4× “The HWPA, at HRS § 378-63, states as follows: (a) A person who alleges a violation of this part may bring a civil action for appropriate injunctive relief, or actual damages, or both within two years after the occurrence of the alleged violation of this part.”
You v. Longs Drugs Stores California, LLC, 937 F. Supp. 2d 1237 (D. Haw. 2013).
“To do so would, in many eases, cause the two-year limitation period in section 378-63 to run. Having detailed its concerns about requiring exhaustion for section 378-62 claims, this court is fortunately able to leave an actual decision on that issue for another day.”
Kosegarten v. Dep't of Prosecuting Attorney, 892 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (D. Haw. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Haw.Rev. Stat. § 378-63(a). Count V alleges that the County “discharged, threatened, or otherwise discriminated against Plaintiff regarding her terms, conditions, and privileges of employment” because she “reported, or was about to report, to Defendant County or a public body, a…”
Campbell v. Dep't of Human Servs., 349 F. Supp. 3d 1019 (D. Haw. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-63 (b). Nor does the legislative history of section 378-70 show that the State of Hawaii intended to consent to federal suit for whistleblower claims.”
Lopes v. Kapiolani Med. Ctr. for Women & Child., 410 F. Supp. 2d 939 (D. Haw. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Haw.Rev.Stat. § 378-63(a) (“A person who alleges a violation of this part [Whistle-blowers’ Protection Act] may bring a civil action for appropriate injunctive relief, or actual damages, or both within two years after the occurrence of the alleged violation of this part.”
Lopes v. Kapiolani Med. Ctr. for Women, 410 F. Supp. 2d 939 (D. Haw. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Haw.Rev.Stat. § 378-63(a) ("A person who alleges a violation of this part [Whistleblowers' Protection Act] may bring a civil action for appropriate injunctive relief, or actual damages, or both within two years after the occurrence of the alleged violation of this part.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-63(a) — 7 cases
Kosegarten v. Dep't of Prosecuting Attorney, 892 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (D. Haw. 2012).
“Haw.Rev. Stat. § 378-63(a). Count V alleges that the County “discharged, threatened, or otherwise discriminated against Plaintiff regarding her terms, conditions, and privileges of employment” because she “reported, or was about to report, to Defendant County or a public body, a…”
Lopes v. Kapiolani Med. Ctr. for Women & Child., 410 F. Supp. 2d 939 (D. Haw. 2005).
“Haw.Rev.Stat. § 378-63(a) (“A person who alleges a violation of this part [Whistle-blowers’ Protection Act] may bring a civil action for appropriate injunctive relief, or actual damages, or both within two years after the occurrence of the alleged violation of this part.”
Lopes v. Kapiolani Med. Ctr. for Women, 410 F. Supp. 2d 939 (D. Haw. 2005).
“Haw.Rev.Stat. § 378-63(a) ("A person who alleges a violation of this part [Whistleblowers' Protection Act] may bring a civil action for appropriate injunctive relief, or actual damages, or both within two years after the occurrence of the alleged violation of this part.”
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.