Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 76
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 76-46 (2026)

  Discharges; demotions

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

     §76-46  Discharges; demotions.  An appointing authority may discharge or demote any employee when the appointing authority considers that the good of the service will be served thereby.  Discharges may be made only for such causes that will promote the efficiency of government service.

     Demotions or discharges shall be in accordance with procedures negotiated under chapter 89 or established under chapter 89C, as applicable. [L 1955, c 274, pt of §1; RL 1955, §3-24; HRS §76-46; am L 1981, c 5, §3; gen ch 1985; am L 2000, c 253, §27]

 

Case Notes

 

  Ten-day suspension without pay prior to termination.  963 F.2d 1167.

  Although plaintiff claimed that the police department violated this section, there was no dispute that the police chief terminated plaintiff thinking "that the good of the service will be served thereby".  937 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (2013).

  Purpose of section, dismissal, act of appointing authority, discussed.  42 H. 122.

  Requirement as to ten days' notice before date of dismissal is clear and unambiguous.  52 H. 313, 475 P.2d 53.

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case: In Re the Appeal of Harper, 475 P.2d 53 (Haw. 1970).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re the Appeal of Harper, 475 P.2d 53 (Haw. 1970). · cites it 3× “The pertinent portion of HRS § 76-46 provides: “No dismissal or demotion of a regular employee 4 shall be effective for any purpose unless at least ten days before the effective date thereof the appointing authority shall have given to the employee a written statement setting…”
Ignacio v. Cnty. of Hawaii, 937 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (D. Haw. 2013). · cites it 3× “In Count IV, Ignacio again alleges that the Police Department failed to timely provide him with all the reason(s) for his termination as allegedly required by the CBA, section 76-46 of Hawaii Revised Statutes, and General Order Nos.”
Dep't of Pub. Saf. v. Forbes. Dissenting Opinion by Ginoza, J. ICA s.d.o., filed 03/15/2024 [ada], 154 Haw. 85. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/14/2024. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 07/10/2024 [ada]. (Haw. 2025). · cites it 10× “Specifically, DPS appealed conclusions of law (COL) 31, 32, and 33, asserting that the MAB’s determinations were in violation of HRS § 76-46; exceeded the MAB’s statutory jurisdiction; affected by error of law; clearly erroneous in view of the substantial evidence in the record;…”
Cooper v. State of Hawaii Dep't of Taxation (D. Haw. 2019). · cites it 4× “ Count 11: Termination against public policy under HRS § 76-46.  Count 12: Race and sex discrimination under Title VII.”
Shorba v. Shiro Amioka, 501 P.2d 807 (Haw. 1972). · cites it 2× “Harper involved HRS § 76-46, which provided that no dismissal or demotion of an employee covered by the State civil service law “shall be effective for any purpose unless at least ten days before the effective date thereof the appointing authority shall have given to the…”
Dep't of Pub. Saf. v. Naumu, 150 Haw. 465 (Haw. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “13 HRS § 76-46 (2000) states, An appointing authority may discharge or demote any employee when the appointing authority considers that the good of the service will be served thereby.”
State of Hawai'i, Dep't of Pub. Saf. v. Forbes, 545 P.3d 574 (Haw. App. 2024). “HRS § 76- 46 (2012) states: § 76-46 Discharges; demotions. An appointing authority may discharge or demote any employee when the appointing authority considers that the good of the service will be served thereby.”
Cooper v. State of Hawaii Dep't of Taxation (D. Haw. 2019). “Based on the settlement terms agreed to in open Court, the settlement did not compromise his right to privacy in the doctor-patient relationship, as he was neither forced to relinquish that right, nor did the settled claims—Counts 11 (termination against public policy under…”
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.