§88-43 Persons ineligible for
membership. Except with respect to faculty members or lecturers employed
on one or more campuses of the University of Hawaii who hold multiple part-time
appointments or positions, in such capacities, any of which may be less than
one-half of a full-time equivalent but all of which, when added together,
aggregate to at least one-half of a full-time equivalent position, the board
may deny membership to any class of part-time employees or persons engaged in
temporary employment of three months or less; provided that no officer or
employee entering service after January 1, 1928, who is entitled to become a
member of any pension system under part III shall be entitled to become a
member of the system. [L 1925, c 55, §3(3); am imp L 1927, c 251, §§1, 2, 5; am
imp L 1929, c 190, §1; RL 1935, pt of §7922; RL 1945, pt of §703; am L 1955, c
141, §1(c); RL 1955, §6-25; am L 1961, c 181, §2; HRS §88-43; am L 1969, c 110,
pt of §1; am L 2003, c 119, §3; am L 2008, c 47, §5]
Case Notes
Per diem employees
are included in class of part-time employees to whom agency may deny membership
in the system under this section and its implementing administrative rule.
Because at least portions of plaintiff's time as per diem judge fell within categories
specified in the rule, agency correctly determined that plaintiff did not
qualify for full-time credited service under the retirement law. 75 H. 42, 856
P.2d 1227.
Where appellant made
year-round contributions to the employees' retirement system (ERS) as a regular
school-year teacher through deductions from her academic-year salary, §88-42.5
and this section did not preclude appellant from remaining eligible for ERS
service-connected disability retirement benefits under §88-79 simply because
the disabling accident to appellant did not occur while appellant was working
in the position that provided appellant's ERS membership eligibility. 140 H.
177, 398 P.3d 766 (2017).
Notes of Decisions
Vail v. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Hawai'i, 856 P.2d 1227 (Haw. 1993).
· cites it 46× “Conversely, ERS maintains that it had the authority under HRS § 88-43 and its own administrative rule § 6-21-14 to deny membership to Vail because, during much of the period of his per diem judgeship, Vail was only a part-time employee.”
Gillan v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 194 P.3d 1071 (Haw. 2008).
· cites it 4× “2d at 1239-40 (deferring to the employees’ retirement system’s interpretation of the term “part-time employees” in HRS § 88-43, as evidenced by its arguments on appeal and its implementation of the statute through an administrative rule, because the statutory term was…”
Stout v. Bd. of Trs. of the Employees' Ret. Sys., State of Hawaii., 398 P.3d 766 (Haw. 2017).
· cites it 8× “5 concerns the limitation of an employee’s ERS contributions (and therefore calculated distributions on retirement) and HRS § 88-43 concerns the denial of membership eligibility to part-time employees, they do not address the distribution of ERS benefits to already existing…”
Fratinardo v. Employees' Ret. Sys. of the State, 295 P.3d 977 (Haw. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “2d 1227, 1240 (deferring to the employees’ retirement system’s reading of an ambiguous term in HRS § 88-43 (1993), because the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the reading was palpably erroneous).”
Martell v. Emp. Ret. Sys. (Haw. App. 2025).
· cites it 34× “In the Final Decision, the ERS Board also concluded that under HRS § 88-43 (2012) and Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) §§ 6-21-14(5) and 6-21-15(a), Martell was not eligible for ERS membership and/or credit for her part-time service as a per diem judge, effective October 1,…”
Martel v. Emp. Ret. Sys. (Haw. 2026).
· cites it 2× “First, who are ERS members? All state employees, including per diem workers, are members unless specifically excluded. HRS § 88-42 (2012).”
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.