Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 387-2 (2026)

  Minimum wages

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §387-2  Minimum wages.  (a)  Except as provided in section 387-9 and this section, every employer shall pay to each employee employed by the employer, wages at the rate of not less than:

     (1)  $6.25 per hour beginning January 1, 2003;

     (2)  $6.75 per hour beginning January 1, 2006;

     (3)  $7.25 per hour beginning January 1, 2007;

     (4)  $7.75 per hour beginning January 1, 2015;

     (5)  $8.50 per hour beginning January 1, 2016;

     (6)  $9.25 per hour beginning January 1, 2017;

     (7)  $10.10 per hour beginning January 1, 2018;

     (8)  $12.00 per hour beginning October 1, 2022;

     (9)  $14.00 per hour beginning January 1, 2024;

    (10)  $16.00 per hour beginning January 1, 2026; and

    (11)  $18.00 per hour beginning January 1, 2028.

     (b)  The hourly wage of a tipped employee may be deemed to be increased on account of tips if the employee is paid no less than:

     (1)  25 cents;

     (2)  50 cents per hour beginning January 1, 2015;

     (3)  75 cents per hour beginning January 1, 2016;

     (4)  $1.00 per hour beginning October 1, 2022;

     (5)  $1.25 per hour beginning January 1, 2024; and

     (6)  $1.50 per hour beginning January 1, 2028,

below the applicable minimum wage by the employee's employer and the combined amount the employee receives from the employee's employer and in tips is at least 50 cents more than the applicable minimum wage; provided that beginning January 1, 2015, the combined amount the employee receives from the employee's employer and in tips is at least $7.00 more than the applicable minimum wage. [L Sp 1941, c 66, §3; am L 1943, c 159, §2; RL 1945, §4353; am L 1945, c 15, §1(2); am L 1953, c 77, §1; am L 1955, c 15, §2; RL 1955, §94-3; am L 1957, c 256, §1; am L 1962, c 16, pt of §2; HRS §387-2; am L 1969, c 36, §3; am L 1974, c 14, §1; am L 1978, c 4, §1; gen ch 1985; am L 1987, c 224, §1; am L 1990, c 34, §25; am L 1991, c 264, §2; am L 2001, c 279, §1; am L 2005, c 240, §3; am L 2014, c 82, §1; am L 2022, c 114, §3]

 

Cross References

 

  Service charge disclosure when not distributed as employees' tip income, see §481B-14.

 

Case Notes

 

  Defendants not entitled to summary judgment; in appropriate circumstances, porterage may be considered in the nature of "gratuities" for the purposes of §387-1 and this section; plaintiffs raised genuine issue of material fact as to whether "porterage" is a "gratuity of any kind".  78 H. 351, 893 P.2d 779 (1995).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Heatherly v. Hilton Hawaiian Vill. Jt. Venture, 893 P.2d 779 (Haw. 1995).
Heatherly v. Hilton Hawaiian Vill. Jt. Venture, 893 P.2d 779 (Haw. 1995). · cites it 24× “1992); 1 therefore,, these amounts can be used to satisfy the Hotels’ obligation under HRS § 387-2 (Supp.1992) 2 to pay minimum wages.”
Villon v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 306 P.3d 175 (Haw. 2013). · cites it 18× “It is true that HRS § 387-1 (1993) defines “wages” to exclude “tips or gratuities” of any kind, but that is solely for the purpose of calculating the “tip credit” under HRS § 387-2 (1993 & Supp. 2005), not for the purposes of allowing employers 10 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S…”
Bolos v. Waldorf=Astoria Mgmt. LLC (Haw. 2026). · cites it 84× “HRS § 387-2 (2002) requires employers to pay employees wages “at the rate of not less than” the applicable minimum wage “per hour.”
Kawakami v. Kahala Hotel Investors, LLC., 341 P.3d 558 (Haw. 2014). · cites it 2× “We explained that although HRS § 387-1 (1993) defines “wages” to exclude “tips or gratuities” of any kind, it “is solely for the purpose of calculating the ‘tip credit’ under HRS § 387-2 (1993 & Supp.2005), not for the purposes of allowing employers to withhold ‘service…”
Beaulieu v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (D. Haw. 2000). · cites it 2× “§ 387-2, the Defendants cannot have violated the aiding and abetting statute.”
Morangelli v. Chemed Corp., 922 F. Supp. 2d 278 (E.D.N.Y 2013). “§ 206 (a)(1), with Haw.Rev.Stat. § 387-2. In response, plaintiffs argue that they asserted their Business Expense and Uncompensated Hours Claims under Chapter 388 of the Hawaii Wage and Hour Law, in addition to Chapter 387, and that § 387-1’s restriction on the definition of…”
Heatherly v. Hilton Haw. Vil. Jt. Vent., 893 P.2d 779 (Haw. 1995). · cites it 24× “1992); [1] therefore, these amounts can be used to satisfy the Hotels' obligation under HRS § 387-2 (Supp.1992) [2] to pay minimum wages.”
Bolos (D. Haw. 2025). · cites it 17× “One of the primary issues in that Motion concerns Count One of the 4AC, a Hawaii law claim2 seeking recovery under HRS § 387-12 for alleged violations of Hawaii’s minimum wage statute, HRS § 387-2. See ECF No. 256 at PageID.6514 (asserting individual and class action causes of…”
Bolos (D. Haw. 2025). · cites it 17× “One of the primary issues in that Motion concerns Count One of the 4AC, a Hawaii law claim2 seeking recovery under HRS § 387-12 for alleged violations of Hawaii’s minimum wage statute, HRS § 387-2. See ECF No. 256 at PageID.6514 (asserting individual and class action causes of…”
Bolos (D. Haw. 2025). · cites it 3× “Count One—Damages Under Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 387-2 Defendants first seek a ruling regarding computation of damages in Count One under HRS § 387-2. The court defers a ruling on this claim because the court certified a question of Hawaii law regarding this claim to…”
Gonzalez v. Diamond Resorts Int'l Mktg., Inc. (D. Nev. 2021). “See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 387-2 (a). Consequently, I deny this 20 portion of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 387-2(a)(10) — 1 case
Bolos v. Waldorf=Astoria Mgmt. LLC (Haw. 2026). “HRS § 387-2 (2002) requires employers to pay employees wages “at the rate of not less than” the applicable minimum wage “per hour.”
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.