Hawaii
Hawaii Whistleblower Laws: Protections and How to Report
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 20, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 20, 2026. · 9 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Hawaii's Whistleblowers' Protection Act (HRS 378-62) protects both private and public sector employees from retaliation when they report violations of law to their employer or a public body. The law covers any worker who performs services for wages under a contract for hire, including state government employees.
Overview of Hawaii Whistleblower Laws
Hawaii is an employment-at-will state. Under the employment-at-will doctrine, employers can terminate workers for any reason or no reason at all. However, Hawaii law creates several important exceptions to this rule that protect employees who report illegal activity or unsafe conditions.

Hawaii's whistleblower protections come from two main sources: common law protections developed through court decisions, and statutory protections enacted by the state legislature. Together, these laws shield workers from retaliation when they speak up about wrongdoing in the workplace.
This guide covers the key statutes, who qualifies for protection, how to file a complaint, available remedies, and important deadlines every Hawaii whistleblower should know.
This is a summary of Hawaii whistleblower laws. Make sure to check out the Federal Whistleblower Laws as well.
Who Is Protected Under Hawaii Law
Hawaii's Whistleblowers' Protection Act (HRS 378-61 through 378-69) covers a broad range of workers. Under HRS 378-61, an "employee" is any person who performs a service for wages or other remuneration under a contract for hire, whether written or oral, express or implied. This definition includes workers employed by the State of Hawaii or any political subdivision of the state.
This means both private sector and public sector employees are protected. Whether you work for a small business in Maui, a large corporation in Honolulu, or a state government agency, Hawaii's whistleblower protections apply to you.
An "employer" under the statute is any person who has one or more employees. This includes agents of an employer, as well as agents of the state or any political subdivision of the state. Notably, individuals (not just companies) can be held liable for violations of this statute.
Common Law Protections
Even before the legislature enacted specific whistleblower statutes, Hawaii courts established common law protections through the public policy exception to at-will employment. Employees cannot be discharged for reasons that violate public policy.
To determine what constitutes public policy, Hawaii courts look at existing statutes and constitutional provisions. If a statute endorses a particular right, an employer may violate public policy by terminating an employee for exercising that right.
Courts have recognized three situations where public policy protects employees from wrongful discharge:
- Refusing to participate in unlawful practices. An employee who declines to break the law at an employer's request is protected.
- Performing a legal duty. An employee who fulfills a legal obligation (such as jury duty or responding to a subpoena) cannot be fired for doing so.
- Exercising a legal right. An employee who exercises a right granted by law (such as filing a workers' compensation claim) is protected from retaliation.
Hawaii courts have applied these protections in cases involving participation in antitrust investigations, inquiries about payroll deductions, and compliance with public health and safety regulations.
Statutory Protections
General Whistleblower Protection (HRS 378-62)
The primary whistleblower statute in Hawaii is HRS 378-62. Under this law, an employer cannot discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee:
- Reports or is about to report a violation or suspected violation of any law, rule, ordinance, or regulation to the employer or a public body.
- Reports or is about to report a violation or suspected violation of a contract executed by the State, a political subdivision of the State, or the United States.
- Participates or intends to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry held by any public body or court.
A "public body" under HRS 378-61 includes the executive branch, legislative branch, state agencies, local governing bodies, law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, and any body created by or primarily funded through state or local authority.
Important: Whistleblower reports may be made in writing or orally. However, reports made directly to the media are not protected under this statute.
Discrimination Protections (HRS 378-2)
Hawaii law also protects employees who oppose or report discriminatory employment practices. Under HRS 378-2, it is unlawful for an employer to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against an employee in retaliation for:
- Opposing any unlawful discriminatory practice.
- Filing a complaint about discriminatory practices.
- Testifying or participating in a proceeding regarding discrimination.
Protected categories under this statute include race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religion, color, ancestry, disability, marital status, arrest and court record, and domestic or sexual violence victim status.
Additionally, HRS 378-2.3 prohibits retaliation against employees who disclose their own wages, inquire about the wages of other employees, or encourage coworkers to exercise their rights under the wage transparency provisions.
Occupational Safety and Health (HRS 396-8)
Hawaii's Occupational Safety and Health law provides specific protections for workers who raise safety concerns. Under HRS 396-8(e), employers cannot discharge, threaten, or discriminate against an employee for:
- Refusing to operate or handle any machine, apparatus, or device that is in an unsafe condition.
- Filing a complaint or instituting a proceeding related to workplace safety.
- Testifying or intending to testify in a safety proceeding.
- Exercising any right endorsed by this statute on behalf of themselves or others.
- Refusing to participate in practices that violate workplace safety laws.
Workers' Compensation Protections (HRS 378-32)
Under HRS 378-32, it is illegal for an employer to discharge, suspend, or discriminate against an employee because the employee suffered a compensable work injury or because the employee testified in a proceeding related to the workers' compensation statute.
Hawaii False Claims Act (HRS 661-21)
The Hawaii False Claims Act allows private citizens to file lawsuits (known as "qui tam" actions) on behalf of the State when they discover fraud against the government. Under HRS 661-21, a person who knowingly presents a false claim for payment to the state, uses a false record to obtain payment, or conspires to defraud the state faces liability.
Whistleblowers who bring successful qui tam actions receive a percentage of the recovered funds:
- 15% to 25% of the proceeds if the State joins the action and takes over prosecution.
- 25% to 30% of the proceeds if the State declines to intervene and the whistleblower pursues the case independently.
Under HRS 661-30, employees, contractors, or agents who face retaliation for filing or assisting with a qui tam action are entitled to relief including reinstatement, two times back pay with interest, and compensation for special damages including litigation costs and attorney fees. An action for that relief must be brought within three years of the retaliatory conduct.
How to File a Whistleblower Complaint in Hawaii
The filing process depends on which statute applies to your situation. Here is a summary of where and how to file under each law.
| Type of Complaint | Where to File | Deadline |
|---|---|---|
| General whistleblower retaliation (HRS 378-62) | Circuit court in the appropriate jurisdiction | 2 years from the retaliatory action |
| Discrimination retaliation (HRS 378-2) | Hawaii Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) | 1 year from the retaliation (Act 56 of 2026) |
| Occupational safety retaliation (HRS 396-8) | HIOSH, Dept. of Labor and Industrial Relations | 60 days from the retaliation |
| Workers' compensation retaliation (HRS 378-32) | Disability Compensation Division, DLIR | 30 days from the retaliatory action |
| False claims qui tam (HRS 661-21) | Circuit court under seal | 6 years from the false claim (up to 10 years in some cases) |
| False Claims Act retaliation (HRS 661-30) | Circuit court | 3 years from the retaliatory conduct |
Filing a General Whistleblower Claim
Under HRS 378-63, a person who believes they suffered retaliation may file a civil action in the circuit court for the circuit where the alleged violation occurred, where the complainant resides, or where the employer resides or has a principal place of business. The lawsuit must be filed within two years of the retaliatory action. Other Hawaii routes carry one-year, 60-day, and 30-day deadlines, so ask a Hawaii employment lawyer for a free case evaluation on which statute and deadline fit your retaliation (attorney advertising).
Filing a Discrimination Retaliation Claim
Employees who suffer retaliation for opposing discrimination should file a complaint with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) within one year of the retaliatory action. Act 56 of 2026 extended this deadline from 180 days, effective May 28, 2026, for claims that had not yet expired on that date. After the HCRC investigates and issues a right-to-sue letter, the employee has 90 days to file a lawsuit in court.
Filing an Occupational Safety Complaint
Complaints about retaliation for raising workplace safety concerns should be filed with the Hawaii Occupational Safety and Health Division (HIOSH) within 60 days of the retaliatory action. Complaints can be submitted:
- Online: Through the HIOSH Whistleblower Complaint Form at labor.hawaii.gov
- By mail: 830 Punchbowl Street #425, Honolulu, HI 96813
- By fax: (808) 586-9104
- By email: dlir.hiosh.discrimination.complaints@hawaii.gov
When filing, include your name, mailing address, email address, and phone number so HIOSH can contact you for follow-up. Your complaint should describe the protected activity you engaged in, what adverse action the employer took, when the adverse action occurred, and how the two are connected.
Filing a Workers' Compensation Retaliation Claim
Complaints should be filed with the Disability Compensation Division of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations within 30 days of the retaliatory action.
Contact Information
| Agency | Phone | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Hawaii Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) | (808) 586-8636 | Discrimination retaliation complaints |
| Dept. of Labor and Industrial Relations | (808) 586-9100 | OSHA and workers' comp complaints |
| HIOSH Division | (808) 586-9100 | Workplace safety retaliation |
Remedies and Penalties for Retaliation
General Whistleblower Remedies (HRS 378-64)
Under HRS 378-64, a court may award a successful whistleblower any combination of the following:
- Reinstatement to the previous job position.
- Payment of back wages.
- Full reinstatement of fringe benefits and seniority rights.
- Actual damages.
The same section also lets the court award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees and witness fees, if the court decides the award is appropriate. (HRS 378-63, the section that creates the civil action, is where the two-year deadline and the venue rules come from, and it defines "damages" to include reasonable attorney fees.)
Under HRS 378-65, a person or public employer who violates the Whistleblowers' Protection Act shall be fined no less than $750 and no more than $7,500 for each violation. That civil fine is not paid to the employee: HRS 378-65(b) directs it to be deposited with the director of finance to the credit of the State general fund. An employee's own recovery comes from the court-ordered remedies listed above.
Discrimination Retaliation Penalties
Hawaii's employment discrimination statute is enforced through civil remedies rather than employer fines. Under HRS 378-5, a court may order hiring, reinstatement, or upgrading of employees, back pay (limited to the two years before the complaint was filed), restoration to labor organization membership, an injunction against the discriminatory practice, any other equitable relief the court finds appropriate, and the costs of the action including reasonable attorney's fees. The old penalty sections of this chapter, HRS 378-7 through 378-9, were repealed in 1989.
Separately, under HRS 368-5, anyone who intentionally resists, prevents, impedes, or interferes with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission or its agents in carrying out their duties, or who intentionally violates a commission order, may be fined up to $500, imprisoned for up to ninety days, or both.
Occupational Safety and Health Penalties
HIOSH penalties follow federal OSHA guidelines and are adjusted annually for inflation. As of 2025, key penalty amounts include:
- Serious violations: Up to $16,550 per violation.
- Willful or repeated violations: Up to $165,514 per violation.
- Failure to correct a violation: Up to $16,550 per day beyond the correction deadline.
False Claims Act Remedies (HRS 661-30)
Employees, contractors, or agents who face retaliation for bringing a qui tam action are entitled to:
- Reinstatement with the same seniority status.
- Two times the amount of back pay, plus interest.
- Compensation for special damages, including litigation costs and reasonable attorney fees.
These remedies are in HRS 661-30, and a suit to obtain them must be filed within three years of the retaliatory conduct. (An earlier section, HRS 661-28, was repealed in 2012.)
Recent Updates to Hawaii Whistleblower Protections
Hawaii's Occupational Safety and Health Division (HIOSH) updated its Whistleblower Investigation Manual effective October 1, 2025. Key changes include:
- HIOSH no longer recognizes bilateral agreements in whistleblower investigations.
- HIOSH no longer imposes punitive damages, consistent with Hawaii Labor Relations Board decisions.
- HIOSH adopted the "reasonable cause" standard to guide the investigative process, aligning with federal OSHA standards.
- Chapter 2 of the manual was restructured to consolidate legal concepts and principles that guide whistleblower investigations.
These procedural updates affect how HIOSH handles and investigates whistleblower complaints but do not change the underlying statutory protections available to employees.
Federal Whistleblower Protections That Apply in Hawaii
In addition to state protections, Hawaii employees may also be covered by several federal whistleblower statutes, including:
- The Whistleblower Protection Act protects federal employees who report government waste, fraud, or abuse.
- The Sarbanes-Oxley Act protects employees of publicly traded companies who report securities fraud.
- The Dodd-Frank Act protects employees who report violations of securities laws to the SEC.
- OSHA Section 11(c) provides federal protection against retaliation for reporting workplace safety violations.
Federal claims may offer additional remedies or longer filing deadlines. Employees should evaluate both state and federal options when considering a whistleblower complaint.
More Hawaii Laws
- Hawaii At-Will Employment Laws
- Hawaii Employee Monitoring Laws
- Hawaii Final Paycheck Laws
- Hawaii Workers Compensation Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Hawaii's whistleblower law protect private sector employees?
Yes. Hawaii's Whistleblowers' Protection Act (HRS 378-62) applies to both private and public sector employees. The statute defines 'employee' as any person who performs a service for wages under a contract for hire, including workers employed by the state or its political subdivisions.
How long do I have to file a whistleblower retaliation claim in Hawaii?
The deadline depends on the type of claim. For general whistleblower retaliation under HRS 378-62, you have two years. For discrimination retaliation, you have one year to file with the HCRC (extended from 180 days by Act 56 of 2026). For occupational safety complaints, you have 60 days. For workers' compensation retaliation, you have 30 days.
Are reports to the media protected under Hawaii whistleblower law?
No. Under HRS 378-62, whistleblower reports must be made to the employer or a public body. Reports made to the media are not protected by Hawaii's whistleblower statute.
Can I receive a financial reward for reporting fraud against the State of Hawaii?
Yes. Under the Hawaii False Claims Act (HRS 661-21), whistleblowers who file successful qui tam lawsuits can receive 15% to 30% of the recovered funds, depending on whether the state joins the case.
What remedies are available if my employer retaliates against me for whistleblowing in Hawaii?
Under HRS 378-64, a court may award reinstatement, back pay, full reinstatement of fringe benefits and seniority rights, and actual damages, and it may award litigation costs including reasonable attorney's fees. Employers also face a civil fine of no less than $750 and no more than $7,500 per violation under HRS 378-65, but that fine goes to the State general fund rather than to the employee.
Updates
Updated the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission filing deadline for discrimination retaliation from 180 days to one year under Act 56 of 2026 (effective May 28, 2026, for claims not yet expired on that date).
Corrected the Hawaii whistleblower civil fine to the current $750 to $7,500 range and clarified that it goes to the State general fund rather than to the employee, attributed the court-ordered remedies to their actual section (HRS 378-64), replaced the repealed HRS 661-28 with the current False Claims Act retaliation section (HRS 661-30) and its three-year deadline, and removed discrimination-statute penalty figures that are not in current law.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 378: EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
§ 378-62Discharge of, threats to, or discrimination against employee for reporting violations of lawIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because: (1) The employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report to the employer, or reports or is about to report to a public body, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of: (A) A law, rule, ordinance, or regulation, adopted pursuant to law of this State, a political subdivision of this State, or the United States; or (B) A contract executed by the State, a political subdivision of the State, or the United States, unless the employee knows that the report is false; or (2) An employee is requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry held by that public body, or a court action. [L 1987, c 267, pt of §1; am L 2002, c 56, §2]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-10 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 57 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 636, AFL-CIO v. Abercrombie. (Hawaii Supreme Court 2014, 133 Haw. 188)“…378-61 to 378-69, in court. Under the plain language of HRS § 378-62, the Act protects all “employees” again…”
- Knowles v. Hawaii Pacific University (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 2026)“…te, or the United States[.] HRS § 378-62 (2015).…”
- Sakaguchi v. University of Hawai'i (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 2026)“…'s amended complaint asserted four claims: (1) violation of HRS § 378-62 (part of the HWPA); (2) tortious interf…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights
§ 378-64Remedies ordered by courtIn force
A court, in rendering a judgment in an action brought pursuant to this part, shall order, as the court considers appropriate, reinstatement of the employee or public employee, payment of back wages, full reinstatement of fringe benefits and seniority rights, actual damages, or any combination of these remedies. A court may also award the complainant all or a portion of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees and witness fees, if the court determines that the award is appropriate. [L 1987, c 267, pt of §1; am L 2011, c 166, §6]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Knowles v. Hawaii Pacific University (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 2026)“…court determines that the award is appropriate. HRS § 378-64 (2015). A claim under HWPA…”
- Sakaguchi v. University of Hawai'i (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 2026)“…or market. Her claim for back- and front-pay was made under HRS § 378-64, as a remedy for Konan wrongfully rejec…”
- United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 636, AFL-CIO v. Abercrombie. (Hawaii Supreme Court 2014, 133 Haw. 188)“…principal place of business.” HRS § 378-63. Finally, under HRS § 378-64, “[a] court, in rendering a judgment in…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 378-65Penalties for violationsIn force
. (a) A person or public employer who violates this part shall be fined no less than $750 nor more than $7,500 for each violation. (b) A civil fine that is ordered pursuant to this part shall be deposited with the director of finance to the credit of the general fund of the State. [L 1987, c 267, pt of §1; am L 2002, c 56, §4; am L 2011, c 166, §7; am L 2020, c 44, §3]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
§ 378-63Civil actions for injunctive relief or damagesIn force
(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]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 18 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 636, AFL-CIO v. Abercrombie. (Hawaii Supreme Court 2014, 133 Haw. 188)“…ad sole original jurisdiction over UPWs claim. The HWPA, at HRS § 378-63, states as follows: (a) A person who…”
- Sakaguchi v. University of Hawai'i (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 2026)“…two years after the occurrence of the alleged violation[,]" HRS § 378-63(a) (2015), and "payment of back wages,…”
- Graham County Soil & Water Conservation District v. United States Ex Rel. Wilson (Supreme Court of the United States 2005, 545 U.S. 409)“…Ga. Code Ann. § 9-3-33 (Lexis 1982) (personal injuries); Haw. Rev. Stat. §378-63 (a) (Supp. 2004) (retaliation action fo…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 378-61DefinitionsIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
As used in this part: "Employee" means a person who performs a service for wages or other remuneration under a contract for hire, written or oral, express or implied. Employee includes a person employed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. "Employer" means a person who has one or more employees. Employer includes an agent of an employer or of the State or a political subdivision of the State. "Person" means an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, association, or any other legal entity.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 21 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Brown v. KFC National Management Co. (Hawaii Supreme Court 1996, 82 Haw. 226)“…a violation of the Hawai'i Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, HRS § 378-61 et seq. (1993). On January 10, 1…”
- Crosby v. State of Hawai'i Department of Budget & Finance (Hawaii Supreme Court 1994, 76 Haw. 332)“…lated the Hawai'i Whis-tleblowers’ Protection Act (“HWPA”), HRS §§ 378-61 to -69 (Supp.1992), and requesting that…”
- United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 636, AFL-CIO v. Abercrombie. (Hawaii Supreme Court 2014, 133 Haw. 188)“…ntended for plaintiffs to bring actions enforcing the HWPA, HRS §§ 378-61 to 378-69, in court. Under the plain la…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii At-Will Employment Laws: Exceptions and Your Rights
§ 378-2Discriminatory practices made unlawful; offenses definedIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
(a) It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: (1) Because of race, sex including gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age, religion, color, ancestry, disability, marital status, arrest and court record, reproductive health decision, or domestic or sexual violence victim status if the domestic or sexual violence victim provides notice to the victim's employer of such status or the employer has actual knowledge of such status: (A) For any employer to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or discharge from employment, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual in compensation or in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment; (B) For any employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or to classify or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual; (C) For any employer or employment agency to print, circulate, or cause to be printed or circulated any statement, advertisement, or publication or to use any form of application for employment or to make any inquiry in connection with prospective employment, that expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification, or discrimination; (D) For any labor organization to…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 151 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai'i) Ltd. (Hawaii Supreme Court 1994, 76 Haw. 454)“…8, asserting claims for: wrongful discharge in violation of HRS § 378-2 (count I); discharge in violation of pu…”
- Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd. (Hawaii Supreme Court 2001, 96 Haw. 408)“…ontract, (2) compensation discrimination based on age under HRS § 378-2(1)(A) (1993), (3) unpaid wages under HR…”
- Shoppe v. Gucci America, Inc. (Hawaii Supreme Court 2000, 94 Haw. 368)“…stated claims for: (1) age discrimination, in violation of HRS § 378-2 (Supp.1999); (2) breach of employment c…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Background Check Laws (2026 Guide), Hawaii Workplace Harassment Laws: Hostile Work Environment (2026), Wrongful Termination in Hawaii (2026): Laws, Deadlines, How to File
§ 378-32Unlawful suspension, barring, discharge, withholding pay, demoting, or discriminationIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) It shall be unlawful for any employer to suspend, discharge, or discriminate against any of the employer's employees: (1) Solely because the employer was summoned as a garnishee in a cause where the employee is the debtor or because the employee has filed a petition in proceedings for a wage earner plan under chapter XIII of the Bankruptcy Act; (2) Solely because the employee has suffered a work injury which arose out of and in the course of the employee's employment with the employer and which is compensable under chapter 386 unless the employee is no longer capable of performing the employee's work as a result of the work injury and the employer has no other available work which the employee is capable of performing. Any employee who is discharged because of the work injury shall be given first preference of reemployment by the employer in any position which the employee is capable of performing and which becomes available after the discharge and during the period thereafter until the employee secures new employment.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 20 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Puchert v. Agsalud (Hawaii Supreme Court 1984, 67 Haw. 25)“…does not comport with the legislative purpose and intent of HRS §§ 378-32 and 378-33, and therefore, we reverse.…”
- Takaki v. Allied MacHinery Corp. (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 1998, 87 Haw. 57)“…rcement Division of the DLIR, alleging that Allied violated HRS § 378-32 because Takaki believed he “was termina…”
- Flores v. United Air Lines, Inc. (Hawaii Supreme Court 1988, 70 Haw. 1)“…ef, filing a complaint alleging a discharge in violation of HRS § 378-32(2) with the department’s Enforcement Di…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Debt Collection Laws: The Bracket Garnishment Formula, 6-Year Debt Limit, and Repossession
§ 378-2.3Equal payIn force
(a) No employer shall discriminate between employees because of any protected category listed in section 378-2(a)(1) by paying wages to employees in an establishment at a rate less than the rate at which the employer pays wages to other employees in the establishment for substantially similar work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions. Payment differentials resulting from: (1) A seniority system; (2) A merit system; (3) A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; (4) A bona fide occupational qualification; or (5) A differential based on any other permissible factor other than any of the protected categories listed in section 378-2(a)(1), do not violate this section. (b) An employer shall not retaliate or discriminate against an employee for, nor prohibit an employee from, disclosing the employee's wages, discussing and inquiring about the wages of other employees, or aiding or encouraging other employees to exercise their rights under this section. [L 2005, c 35, §2; am L 2018, c 108, §3; am L 2023, c 203, §3]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
§ 378-5RemediesIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) The commission may order appropriate affirmative action, including, but not limited to, hiring, reinstatement, or upgrading of employees, with or without backpay, restoration to membership in any respondent labor organization, or other remedies as provided under chapter 368, which in the judgment of the commission, will effectuate the purpose of this part, including a requirement for reporting on the manner of compliance. (b) In any civil action brought under this part, if the court finds that a respondent has engaged in or is engaging in any unlawful discriminatory practice as defined in this part, the court may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such unlawful discriminatory practice and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement, hiring, or upgrading of employees, with or without backpay, or restoration of membership in any respondent labor organization, or any other equitable relief the court deems appropriate. Backpay liability shall not accrue from a date more than two years prior to the filing of the complaint with the commission.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 15 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai'i) Ltd. (Hawaii Supreme Court 1994, 76 Haw. 454)“…d be stricken because neither were available remedies under HRS § 378-5 (1985). On August 27, 1992, the circu…”
- Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd. (Hawaii Supreme Court 2001, 96 Haw. 408)“…costs, and prejudgment interest 12 under HRS § 378-5(c) (1993), 13 requesting t…”
- Collins v. South Seas Jeep Eagle (Hawaii Supreme Court 1997, 87 Haw. 86)“…would be entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to HRS § 378-5(c). Collins asserted that her attorneys…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 661: ACTIONS BY AND AGAINST THE STATE
§ 661-21Actions for false claims to the State; qui tam actionsIn force
(a) Notwithstanding section 661-7 to the contrary, any person who: (1) Knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval; (2) Knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim; (3) Has possession, custody, or control of property or money used, or to be used, by the State and, intending to defraud the State or to wilfully conceal the property, delivers, or causes to be delivered, less property than the amount for which the person receives a certificate or receipt; (4) Is authorized to make or deliver a document certifying receipt of property used, or to be used by the State and, intending to defraud the State, makes or delivers the receipt without completely knowing that the information on the receipt is true; (5) Knowingly buys, or receives as a pledge of an obligation or debt, public property from any officer or employee of the State who is not lawfully authorized to sell or pledge the property; (6) Knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the State,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 16 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Ministries (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 2018, 416 P.3d 918)“…ed the HFCA in three ways. Count 1 alleged the violation of HRS § 661-21(a)(6) ; Count 2 alleged the violation o…”
- KNG CORP. v. Kim (Hawaii Supreme Court 2005, 107 Haw. 73)“…failed to ascertain whether rent was actually owed and that HRS § 661-21 violates equal protection because it di…”
- Pono v. Molokai Ranch, Ltd. (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 2008, 119 Haw. 164)“…thorizing civil actions by private persons for violation of HRS § 661-21 (Supp.2007) relating to false claims ma…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 661-28REPEALEDRepealed
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2018
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Ministries (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 2018, 416 P.3d 918)“…ring, audit, or report that led to the public disclosure. HRS § 661-28 (Supp. 2011). 6 Congress amended the…”
- United States Ex Rel. Rost v. Pfizer Inc. (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2006, 446 F. Supp. 2d 6)“…c); D.C.Code § 2-308-15(c)(2)(A); Fla. Stat. § 68.087 (3); Haw.Rev.Stat. § 661-28; 740 111. Comp. Stat. 175/4(e)(4)(A); M…”
- In Re Pharmaceutical Ind. Avg. Whole. Price Lit. (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2008, 538 F. Supp. 2d 367)“…7.100(2)(c). See also Cal. Gov't Code § 12652 (d)(3)(B); Haw. Rev.Stat. § 661-28; D.C.Code § 2-308.15(c)(2)(8). Defendan…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 661-30Relief from retaliatory actionsIn force
(a) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any employee, contractor, or agent shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make that employee, contractor, or agent whole, if that employee, contractor, or agent is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment, contract, or agency relationship because of lawful acts done by the employee, contractor, agent, or associated others in furtherance of an action under section 661-25 or other efforts to stop or address any conduct described in section 661-21(a). (b) Relief under subsection (a) shall include reinstatement with the same seniority status that the employee, contractor, or agent would have had but for the discrimination, two times the amount of back pay, interest on the back pay, and compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs and reasonable attorney's fees. An action for relief from retaliatory actions under subsection (a) may be brought in the appropriate court of this State for the relief provided in this part.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 396: OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
§ 396-8Employee responsibility and rightsIn force
(a) Employee compliance. Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations and orders issued under this chapter which are applicable to the employee's own actions and conduct. (b) Complaints to the department. Complaints may be made to the department and where reasonable grounds exist for the department to believe there may be a hazard, there shall be an inspection in response to the complaint. (c) Opportunity for employees to participate in inspections. At the time and place of inspections under section 396-4(b)(2), (3), and (4), an opportunity shall be provided for employees and their representatives to bring possible violations to the attention of the authorized representative of the director conducting said inspection in order to aid inspections. This requirement may be fulfilled by allowing a representative of the employees and a representative of the employer to accompany the director's authorized representative during the physical inspection of the workplace, or in absence of the employees' representative, there shall be a consultation with a reasonable number of employees. (d) Notice of nonaction to employees.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2015
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Iddings v. Mee-Lee (Hawaii Supreme Court 1996, 82 Haw. 1)“…ional Safety and Health Law affords Iddings a remedy. Under HRS § 396-8(b) (1993), entitled Employee Responsib…”
- Adams v. CDM Media USA, Inc. (Hawaii Supreme Court 2015, 135 Haw. 1)“…r having reported work place safety issues, in violation of HRS § 396-8(e)(3). Si-Nor, 2009 WL 405926 , at *…”
- Taylor v. Government Employees Insurance Co. (Hawaii Supreme Court 1999, 90 Haw. 302)“…s, created in the workers' compensation context pursuant to HRS § 396-8, without employer's consent) (quoting…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 368: CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION
§ 368-5PenaltiesIn force
Whoever intentionally resists, prevents, impedes, or interferes with the commission or any of its authorized agents or representatives in the performance of duties pursuant to this chapter, or who in any manner intentionally violates an order of the commission, shall be fined not more than $500, or imprisoned for not more than ninety days, or both. [L 1988, c 219, pt of §1]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2017
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hawai'i Technology Academy v. LE. (Hawaii Supreme Court 2017)“…ssion), HRS § 368-4 (Records; reporting requirements), and HRS § 368-5 (Penalties). See id. Act 219 dire…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Sources and References
- HRS 378-62: Discharge of, threats to, or discrimination against employee for reporting violations of law(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- HRS 378-61: Definitions under the Whistleblowers Protection Act(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- HRS 378-63: Civil actions for injunctive relief or damages(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- HRS 661-21: Actions for false claims to the State; qui tam actions(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- HIOSH: File a Whistleblower Complaint(labor.hawaii.gov).gov
- HIOSH Whistleblower Investigation Manual(labor.hawaii.gov).gov
- OSHA Penalty Amounts (2025)(osha.gov).gov
- Hawaii DOD: Whistleblower Protection Act(dod.hawaii.gov).gov
- HRS 378-64: Remedies ordered by court(data.capitol.hawaii.gov)
- HRS 378-65: Civil fine for violating the Whistleblowers' Protection Act(data.capitol.hawaii.gov)
- HRS 661-30: Relief from retaliatory actions (Hawaii False Claims Act)(data.capitol.hawaii.gov)
- HRS 378-5: Remedies for unlawful discriminatory practices(data.capitol.hawaii.gov)
- HRS 368-5: Penalty for interfering with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission(data.capitol.hawaii.gov)
- Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, Act 56 Signed Into Law: Extends the Statute of Limitations to File a Complaint with the Civil Rights Commission (2026)(labor.hawaii.gov).gov
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.