Hawai'i Technology Academy v. LE., 407 P.3d 103

Background

Student (born with Down syndrome and other disabilities) previously received IDEA services and attended Hawaiʻi Technology Academy (a public charter school administered by the DOE). Parent revoked IDEA consent in 2012; Student later applied as a general-education applicant.
Parent requested accommodations for the Academy’s on-line grade-level placement test (e.g., testing at home, one-to-one support, breaks); Academy refused because Parent had revoked IDEA services; Student could not complete the test and was not admitted for 2013–14.
Parent submitted a pre-complaint to the Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) asserting disability discrimination under HRS § 368-1.5 (state analog to Section 504). The HCRC found it had jurisdiction under § 368-1.5 and accepted the petition.
The Academy and DOE appealed; the circuit court reversed the HCRC, holding the HCRC exceeded its jurisdiction. The matter was transferred to the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court.
The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court held that HRS § 368-1.5 was intended as a gap-filling statute to cover entities not subject to federal Section 504; because the DOE/Academy receive federal funds and Section 504 applied, the HCRC lacked jurisdiction over the petition.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether HCRC has jurisdiction under HRS § 368-1.5 over disability claims against public charter schools/DOE programs	L.E.: § 368-1.5 applies to state agencies and programs receiving state assistance, so HCRC may adjudicate the Academy’s denial of test accommodations	Academy/DOE: § 368-1.5 was meant to fill gaps where Section 504 does not apply; DOE and charter schools receiving federal funds are governed by Section 504, not HCRC jurisdiction	Held: HCRC lacks jurisdiction because § 368-1.5 was intended to cover situations where federal Section 504 does not apply, and Section 504 applies here
Whether § 368-1.5 was intended to provide overlapping state remedies alongside Section 504	L.E.: § 368-1.5 is modeled on Section 504 and is Hawaii’s analog, so state enforcement may overlap	Academy/DOE & HCRC (alternative): Legislature intended § 368-1.5 to "extend" protections to state-funded programs not covered by federal law; not to overlap with Section 504	Held: Legislative history shows § 368-1.5 was gap-filling, not meant to provide overlapping remedies where Section 504 already applies
Whether HCRC can treat certain accommodations as "non-academic" to avoid Section 504 preemption	L.E.: Some accommodations (testing logistics) are non-academic and fall within HCRC authority under state law	Academy/DOE: Distinction between academic and non-academic accommodations is blurred; such accommodations implicate education and Section 504 protections	Held: Court found the academic/non-academic distinction immaterial to jurisdiction because Section 504 covers educational accommodations and applies here
Mootness / public interest exception	HCRC: not directly argued as a defense	Academy/DOE: did not raise mootness below; Student was later re-enrolled	Held: Court addressed jurisdiction on the merits under the "capable of repetition yet evading review" public-interest exception and reached disposition

Key Cases Cited

Citizens Against Reckless Dev. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 114 Hawai‘i 184, 159 P.3d 143 (Haw. 2007) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo; plain language and legislative intent govern)
Coon v. City & County of Honolulu, 98 Hawai‘i 233, 47 P.3d 348 (Haw. 2002) (deference to administrative agencies does not apply when agency construction conflicts with legislative intent)
Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 99 Hawai‘i 191, 53 P.3d 799 (Haw. 2002) (public-interest exception to mootness for controversies capable of repetition yet evading review)
Cherry v. Mathews, 419 F. Supp. 922 (D.D.C. 1976) (Section 504 was not intended to be self-executing; implementing regulations required)