Retaliation and Wrongful Termination in Hawaii
Hawaii Wrongful Termination & Retaliation Lawyer
“Wrongful termination” is not a single claim in Hawaii. It is a description of a result, and the law reaches it through several different statutes, each with its own route and its own deadline.
That matters more here than almost anywhere else in employment law, because two of the routes on this page have different filing periods and go to different places. Reading one and assuming it covers the other is how claims are lost.
Retaliation Under the Discrimination Statute
HRS §378-2(a)(2) makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice for any employer, labor organization, or employment agency to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any individual “because the individual has opposed any practice forbidden by this part or has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding respecting the discriminatory practices prohibited under this part.”
Two distinct kinds of conduct are protected there. The first is opposition — objecting to a practice forbidden by part I of chapter 378. The second is participation — filing a complaint, testifying, or assisting in a proceeding. Neither requires that the underlying complaint ultimately succeed.
Because this is a part I claim, it goes to the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, which HRS §368-11(a) gives jurisdiction over those practices. HRS §368-11(c), as amended by Act 56 (2026), provides that no complaint shall be filed after the expiration of one year after the date on which the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice occurred, or of the last occurrence in a pattern of ongoing discriminatory practice. The HCRC states that the Act was signed on May 28, 2026, applies prospectively, and applies to claims not yet expired on that date.
The commission also states directly that it is unlawful to retaliate against someone for filing a complaint with the HCRC or participating as a witness in its process, and that retaliation may result in a separate complaint of unlawful discriminatory practices.
The Whistleblowers’ Protection Act
Hawaii has a separate statute for employees who report suspected illegality. HRS §378-62 provides that 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:
- The employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report — to the employer or to a public body, verbally or in writing — a violation or a suspected violation of a law, rule, ordinance, or regulation adopted pursuant to the law of this State, a political subdivision of this State, or the United States, or of a contract executed by the State, a political subdivision of the State, or the United States, unless the employee knows the report is false; or
- The employee is requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry held by that public body, or a court action.
Several features of that text are easy to miss. It protects a report made to the employer, not only to an outside agency. It protects an employee who “is about to report” as well as one who has already reported. It protects a report of a suspected violation. And the exception is narrow: it applies where the employee knows the report is false, not where the report simply turns out to be mistaken.
The Act also protects public employees. HRS §378-61 defines “public employee” broadly to include employees of the State or any county and their political subdivisions and agencies, employees under contract with the State or a county, civil service employees, probationary or provisional employees, and employees of general contractors and subcontractors executing a contract with a governmental contracting agency.
A Different Deadline, and a Different Courthouse
A whistleblower claim does not go to the Civil Rights Commission. HRS §378-63(a) provides that a person who alleges a violation of that 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 that part.
HRS §378-63(b) provides that the action 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 complaint is filed resides or has a principal place of business.
So a single termination can sit under two statutes at once, with a one-year agency filing period on one side and a two-year civil deadline on the other. The earlier of the applicable deadlines is the one that decides what remains available. Do not use this page to work out how much time you have — confirm the deadlines that apply to your facts with an attorney immediately.
What a Court May Order
HRS §378-64 provides that a court, in rendering a judgment in an action brought under that 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. HRS §378-63(c) defines damages, for purposes of that section, as damages for injury or loss caused by each violation of the part, including reasonable attorney fees.
For a retaliation claim brought under part I of chapter 378 instead, the remedies provisions are HRS §368-17 and HRS §378-5. Those are described on the employment discrimination page, along with the rule in §378-5(b) that back pay liability shall not accrue from a date more than two years prior to the filing of the complaint with the commission.
Firings That Fit Neither Statute
Hawaii courts have also recognized a claim for discharge in violation of public policy, referred to in the annotations to chapter 378 as a claim based on Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc. Those same annotations record decisions holding such a claim barred where chapter 378 already provided a sufficient remedy for the violation complained of.
The practical consequence is that the existence of a statutory route can displace the common-law one rather than adding to it. Whether a particular discharge fits a statute, the public policy claim, both, or neither is a question that turns on the specific facts and is not one this page can answer.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Hawaii law protect me for reporting something at work?
Hawaii's Whistleblowers' Protection Act, HRS section 378-62, provides that 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 the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report to the employer or to a public body, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law, rule, ordinance, or regulation adopted pursuant to the law of this State, a political subdivision of this State, or the United States, or of 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. The same section also protects an employee who is requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, or a court action.
What is the deadline for a Hawaii whistleblower claim?
HRS section 378-63(a) provides that a person who alleges a violation of that 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. That is the whistleblower deadline specifically, and it is different from the deadline for a discrimination or retaliation complaint under part I of chapter 378, which is filed with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. Because more than one deadline can apply to the same set of events, and because the earliest one controls what you can still bring, confirm the deadlines in your situation with an attorney immediately.
Is retaliation for complaining about discrimination treated differently?
Yes. That form of retaliation is prohibited by HRS section 378-2(a)(2), which makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice for any employer, labor organization, or employment agency to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any individual because the individual has opposed any practice forbidden by part I of chapter 378 or has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding respecting the discriminatory practices prohibited under that part. Because it is a part I claim, it runs through the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. HRS section 368-11(c), as amended by Act 56 (2026), provides that no complaint shall be filed after the expiration of one year after the date of the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice or of the last occurrence in a pattern of ongoing discriminatory practice.
What can a court order in a Hawaii whistleblower case?
HRS section 378-64 provides that a court, in rendering a judgment in an action brought under that 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. HRS section 378-63(c) provides that damages means damages for injury or loss caused by each violation of that part, including reasonable attorney fees.
Where is a Hawaii whistleblower case filed?
HRS section 378-63(b) provides that an action commenced under 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. Unlike a discrimination complaint under part I of chapter 378, a whistleblower claim is brought as a civil action rather than filed with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.
Is it retaliation if I was fired for complaining about my pay?
Hawaii's wage payment law contains its own protection. HRS section 388-10(b) makes it an offense for an employer, or the employer's agent, or any officer or agent of a corporation, to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because the employee has made a complaint to the employer, to the director of labor and industrial relations, or to any other person that the employee has not been paid wages in accordance with that chapter, or has instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to that chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding. Which protection fits a particular set of facts, and which deadline attaches to it, should be confirmed with an attorney.
Related Pages
If the underlying complaint was about a protected characteristic, see employment discrimination under HRS chapter 378. If it was about pay, HRS chapter 388 carries its own anti-retaliation provision, described on the page about unpaid and withheld wages.
Working Out Which Route Applies
The useful first step is usually not deciding whether to bring a claim. It is identifying which statute your facts sit under, because that determines the deadline, and the deadline determines whether the rest of the decision is still yours to make.
If you would like help identifying that, you can speak with my Honolulu office and ask.
Free Consultation
Consultations are free. Vietnamese is spoken at this office.
General information, not legal advice
This page describes Hawaii law in general terms for educational purposes. It is not legal advice, it does not account for the facts of any particular case, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Statutes and the way courts apply them change over time. For advice about your own situation, consult a licensed Hawaii attorney.