High court upholds ruling against Hawai'i Civil Rights Commission
Advertiser Staff
A Hawai'i Supreme Court ruling could affect the authority of the Hawai'i Civil Rights Commission, a lawyer for one of the parties said.
In a 3-1 decision Wednesday, the court ruled that a state law that pertains to operations of the commission violates state and federal constitutions because it does not allow employers the right to a court trial. Associate Justice Simeon Acoba was the lone dissenter.
Under the law, if the commission finds there is probable cause to support an employee's claim that an employer violated his or her civil rights, only the employee is given the option of pursuing the case administratively through the commission or taking it to court.
Lawyers for a burial services company in 2001 challenged that section of the law, claiming it was unconstitutional because it deprived employers of a right to trial, under the state Constitution, and equal protection under the law, a right protected by an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In 1998, two women had filed a complaint with the commission against SCI Management, Hawaiian Memorial Park Cemetery, and Hawaiian Memorial Life Plan, alleging that a supervisor sexually harassed them.
The commission recommended a settlement of $400,000 for each woman. Jeff Portnoy, an attorney for the employer, said the commission's authority to award damages was challenged because he believed it violated the employer's right to a jury trial.
A Circuit Court judge in July 2001 agreed with the burial services company and said the firm's constitutional rights were violated. Yesterday, the state Supreme Court also agreed.
Portnoy characterized the ruling as "one of the most significant employment cases to come down in recent years." He said his client will go through the administrative process before the commission, but will now have the option of a jury trial if it is not happy with the commission's decision.
Currently, an employer can only appeal the commission's awarding of punitive and compensatory damages. Portnoy said the ruling does not affect the commission's ability to award back pay and reinstatement.
Commission executive director William Hoshijo said the ruling was a "mixed bag" because it upholds the commission's procedures and does not allow an employer to opt out of the administrative process. "On the other hand, it's not what we were arguing for, and the court has recognized a right to a jury trial where that was not clear (before)," he said.
Hoshijo said the commission will take a closer look at the ruling to see how it will affect the agency's operations.
Although the ruling involved just this case, it could be used by other employers to challenge commission decisions, Portnoy said.
The ruling "takes away a lot of the reasons for them to exist and a lot of their power," Portnoy said. "If I'm an employee and I was deciding between an administrative proceeding and court, knowing that the employer is going to have a second opportunity, I'm more likely than not to skip the administrative proceeding."
Hoshijo disagreed and said the court's ruling did not undermine the commission's authority.
"I really don't see that in the decision," he said. "In fact the court went through what seemed to be great pains to preserve the statutory scheme." But he acknowledged that the commission will have to take a look at its available resources because of the possibility of the additional court cases.
The commission was established in 1988 to enforce state laws banning discrimination based on sex, race, ancestry/national origin, religion, color, disability, age, marital status, arrest and court record, assignment of income for child support obligations, National Guard participation, sexual orientation and breast-feeding.
