Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 388-11 (2026)

Employees remedies

✓ current as of July 2026

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

§388-11 Employees remedies. (a) Action by an employee to recover unpaid wages may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of oneself or themselves, or the employee or employees may designate an agent or representative to maintain the action.

(b) Except for claims filed by individuals employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity or in the capacity of an outside salesperson, whenever the director of labor and industrial relations determines that wages have not been paid, and that the unpaid wages constitute an enforceable claim, the director may upon the request of the employee take an assignment in trust for the wages without being bound by any of the technical rules respecting validity of any such assignments and may bring any legal action necessary to collect such claim. With the consent of the assigning employee at the time of the assignment the director may settle and adjust any such claim to the same extent as might the assigning employee. No claim shall be accepted by the director after the expiration of one year from the date the wages are due and payable.

(c) The court in any action brought under this section shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow interest of six per cent per year from the date the wages were due, costs of action, including costs of fees of any nature, and reasonable attorney's fees, to be paid by the defendant. The director shall not be required to:

(1) Pay the filing fee or other costs or fees of any nature, including the opposing party's fees and costs; or

(2) File a bond or other security of any nature, in connection with such action, with proceedings supplementary thereto, or as a condition precedent to the availability to the director of any process in aid of such action or proceedings. The director may join various claimants in one preferred claim or lien, and in case of suit join them in one cause of action.

(d) When the business of any person, corporation, company, or firm is suspended as a result of a writ of execution or attachment or is placed in the hands of a receiver, trustee, or assignee for creditors, then in all such cases claims for wages of not more than $600 to each claimant, earned within one year of the date such business is suspended or placed in the hands of a receiver, trustee, or assignee for creditors, shall be paid in full prior to the payment of taxes or any other debts except a debt secured by a mortgage duly recorded before the wages were earned.

(e) Any employee desiring to enforce the employee's claim for wages under subsections (d), (e), and (f) of this section shall present a statement under oath showing the amount due, the kind of work for which the wages are due, and when the work was performed to the office or person charged with such property within twenty days after the seizure thereof on any execution or writ of attachment or within sixty days after the property has been placed in the hands of a receiver, trustee, or assignee for creditors. Any interested party may contest any such claim or part thereof by filing sworn exception thereto with such officer or person within ten days after the period for filing claims, and thereupon the claimant shall be required to reduce the claimant's claim to judgment before any part thereof shall be paid.

(f) No claim shall be paid until after the expiration of the time for filing and contesting claims. If the funds realized from the sale of the property are insufficient to pay the total claims for wages presented, then the funds shall be prorated on such claims. [L 1963, c 158, pt of §3; Supp, §95-10; am L 1967, c 13, §1; HRS §388-11; am L 1973, c 8, §1; gen ch 1985, 1993; am L 1994, c 84, §2; am L 1999, c 251, §4]

Rules of Court

Collection suits, maintenance of, see HRCP rules 17(a), 18(a), 20, 23.

Case Notes

The legislative history of §481B-14, as interpreted by the Hawaii supreme court in Davis, allows plaintiff hotel employees to recover for unpaid service charges imposed without the requisite disclosure set forth in §481B-14, through a claim brought pursuant to §§388-6 and 388-10 and this section. 835 F. Supp. 2d 914 (2011).

Hawaii courts should be given discretion to enhance the lodestar fee when an attorney has been retained on a contingency fee basis; a "reasonable fee" under Hawaii fee-shifting statutes is an amount of fees that "would attract competent counsel", in light of all the circumstances, and that under certain circumstances the lodestar fee may be multiplied by a factor to achieve a "reasonable" award of fees. 96 H. 408, 32 P.3d 52 (2001).

Where a court awards attorney's fees pursuant to fee-shifting statutes in cases involving contingency fee arrangements, a trial judge should not be limited by the contingency fee arrangement between a plaintiff and his or her counsel in determining a reasonable fee; plaintiff is thus not necessarily barred from recovery of a doubled lodestar fee. 96 H. 408, 32 P.3d 52 (2001).

Where employers imposed a service charge at banquets and other functions held at employers' hotels, and retained a portion of the service charge income without disclosing that practice to customers, the circuit court correctly held that "tip income" retained by employers in violation of §481B-14 constitutes "compensation" earned by service employees for purposes of bringing a claim under this section and §§388-6 and 388-10. 133 H. 1, 323 P.3d 792 (2014).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 32 P.3d 52 (Haw. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 32 P.3d 52 (Haw. 2001). · cites it 4× “If Jonathan and Fred are found individually liable for the retaliation claim on remand, they will be liable for attorney's fees under HRS § 388-11(c). 67 . As stated supra, Plaintiff’s counsel was retained on a one-third contingency fee basis.”

Villon v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 306 P.3d 175 (Haw. 2013). · cites it 10× “” The subject matter of HRS § 388-6 is “Withholding of wages,” the subject matter of HRS § 388-10 is “Penalties,” and the subject matter of HRS § 388-11 is “Employees[’] remedies.” Although the title of HRS § 481B-14 is “Hotel or restaurant service charge; disposition,” the text…”

Coon v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 47 P.3d 348 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 2× “3d 52, 95-96 (2001) (noting that “HRS §§ 388-11(c) and 378-5 ... mandate an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party by employing the word ‘shall’ ”); Kahuku Agr.”

Gurrobat v. HTH Corp.., 323 P.3d 792 (Haw. 2014). · cites it 4× “5 HRS § 388-11 provides in relevant part: The court in any action brought under this section shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow interest of six per cent per year from the date the wages were due, costs of action, including costs of…”

Taomae v. Lingle, 118 P.3d 1188 (Haw. 2005). · cites it 2× “2789 was “A Bill for an Act Relating to Sexual Assault” and did not refer to a proposal to amend the constitution.”

Casumpang v. ILWU LOCAL 142, 121 P.3d 391 (Haw. 2005). · cites it 2× “HRS § 388-11 provides in pertinent part: Employees remedies, (a) Action by an employee to recover unpaid wages may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees.”

Wadsworth v. Ksl Grant Wailea Resort, Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (D. Haw. 2010). · cites it 2× “§ 388-11, an employee may maintain an action to recover unpaid wages.”

Gurrobat v. HTH Corp.., 346 P.3d 197 (Haw. 2015). · cites it 2× “In addition, we have held that employees harmed by violations of HRS § 481B-4 may bring actions to enforce their rights and seek remedies under HRS § 388-11. See Villon, 130 Hawai'i at 132-33 , 306 P.”

Doe v. Doe, 34 P.3d 1059 (Haw. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “7) is more akin to the fee-shifting statute HRS § 388-11(c) than to HRS § 607-14 (1993), cited by Judge Watanabe, that concerns “actions in the nature of assumpsit and in all actions on a promissory note or other contract in writing that provides for an attorney’s fee.”

Kyne v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., 835 F. Supp. 2d 914 (D. Haw. 2011). · cites it 2× “This “tip income” qualifies as “compensation earned” under § 388-6, and thus is recoverable pursuant to § 388-10, *937 which provides for penalties against “[a]ny employer who fails to pay wages in accordance with [Chapter 388] without equitable justification,” and § 388-11,…”

Davis v. Four Seasons Hotel Ltd., 810 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (D. Haw. 2011). “Plaintiffs argue that the “service charge” that Four Seasons billed to resort customers should have been distributed in full to the service employees as tip income.”

Balboa v. Hawaii Care & Cleaning, Inc., 105 F. Supp. 3d 1165 (D. Haw. 2015). “” Section 388-11 provides an employee or class of employees with a cause of action to recover unpaid wages.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 388-11(a) — 3 cases

Villon v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 306 P.3d 175 (Haw. 2013). “” The subject matter of HRS § 388-6 is “Withholding of wages,” the subject matter of HRS § 388-10 is “Penalties,” and the subject matter of HRS § 388-11 is “Employees[’] remedies.” Although the title of HRS § 481B-14 is “Hotel or restaurant service charge; disposition,” the text…”

McShane v. Dep't of Parks & Rec., City & Cnty. of Honolulu (D. Haw. 2021).

Bolos (D. Haw. 2025).

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 388-11(c) — 5 cases

Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 32 P.3d 52 (Haw. 2001). “If Jonathan and Fred are found individually liable for the retaliation claim on remand, they will be liable for attorney's fees under HRS § 388-11(c). 67 . As stated supra, Plaintiff’s counsel was retained on a one-third contingency fee basis.”

Coon v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 47 P.3d 348 (Haw. 2002). “3d 52, 95-96 (2001) (noting that “HRS §§ 388-11(c) and 378-5 ... mandate an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party by employing the word ‘shall’ ”); Kahuku Agr.”

Taomae v. Lingle, 118 P.3d 1188 (Haw. 2005). “2789 was “A Bill for an Act Relating to Sexual Assault” and did not refer to a proposal to amend the constitution.”

Doe v. Doe, 34 P.3d 1059 (Haw. App. 2001). “7) is more akin to the fee-shifting statute HRS § 388-11(c) than to HRS § 607-14 (1993), cited by Judge Watanabe, that concerns “actions in the nature of assumpsit and in all actions on a promissory note or other contract in writing that provides for an attorney’s fee.”

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.