Greer v. Baker.
137 Haw. 249
Haw.2016Background
- Mark H.K. Greer, former DOH division chief, sued the State and Senator Rosalyn H. Baker alleging Baker introduced a budget amendment to eliminate his position in retaliation for whistleblowing; claims: HWPA violation, IIED, NIED.
- Baker moved to dismiss raising absolute legislative immunity, statute-of-limitations, and failure-to-state claims; the circuit court denied Baker's legislative-immunity defense, dismissed HWPA and NIED as to Baker in part, and left IIED against Baker.
- Baker sought leave for interlocutory appeal under HRS §641-1(b); the circuit court denied leave; Baker nevertheless appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) asserting the denial of legislative immunity was immediately appealable (citing Abercrombie).
- The ICA (2-1) dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding Jenkins and the HRCP Rule 58 / separate-document requirement foreclosed immediate appeals and that no exception (including collateral-order) applied; a dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal.
- The Hawai'i Supreme Court granted certiorari and held the denial of an absolute legislative-immunity claim is an immediately appealable collateral order, vacating the ICA dismissal and remanding for merits consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a motion to dismiss based on absolute legislative immunity is immediately appealable | Greer: Alleged acts were outside legislative function; Abercrombie does not preclude review of merits; appeal not proper unless final judgment per Jenkins | Baker: Denial of absolute legislative immunity is immediately appealable (Abercrombie and collateral-order doctrine); immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial | Held: Yes. Denial of absolute legislative immunity satisfies the three-part collateral-order test and is immediately appealable. |
| Whether Jenkins overruled Abercrombie and thereby barred immediate appeal absent HRCP Rule 58 separate-judgment entry | Greer: ICA majority: Jenkins’s separate-judgment rule limits Abercrombie; collateral-order exceptions do not save appeal | Baker: Abercrombie remains controlling on legislative immunity appeals; collateral-order doctrine applies | Held: Jenkins did not overrule Abercrombie because Abercrombie rests on collateral-order principles, which are exceptions to the separate-judgment rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abercrombie v. McClung, 54 Haw. 376, 507 P.2d 719 (1973) (denial of legislative immunity treated as immediately appealable)
- Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Haw. 115, 869 P.2d 1334 (1994) (separate-document requirement for appealable judgments under HRCP Rule 58)
- Abrams v. Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright, [citation="88 Hawai'i 319, 966 P.2d 631"] (1998) (articulation of three-part collateral-order test in Hawai'i)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (foundation for the collateral-order doctrine)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (pretrial denial of absolute immunity is appealable as collateral order)