284 P.3d 946
Haw. Ct. App.2012Background
- Yang was a store manager at Abercrombie & Fitch at the Ala Moana Shopping Center in Honolulu.
- A wallet containing $600 was found and turned in; Yang and a co-manager placed it in a store safe.
- Money went missing; Yang reported it to Peyton, an A&F Loss Prevention Agent.
- Ares interrogated Yang by phone and made accusatory statements, pressuring her to confess.
- Peyton suspended Yang and escorted her in plain view of coworkers; she cried and felt humiliated.
- Yang filed a DLIR workers’ compensation claim (approved October 17, 2007); on May 20, 2008 she filed a multi-count complaint in circuit court against A&F seeking various damages; A&F moved to dismiss the complaint under HRCP Rule 12(b)(6) and HRS Chapter 386.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusivity bars the co-employee willful acts claims | Yang’s injuries arose from employment and co-employees’ willful acts. | A&F argues exclusivity bars all such claims against the employer. | Barred as to the co-employee willful acts claims. |
| Whether Furukawa creates an exception to exclusivity for all intentional torts | Furukawa suggests exceptions for intentional acts. | Furukawa does not create a general exception. | No general exception; Furukawa not controlling for all intentional torts. |
| Whether a co-employee intentional tort can be an “accident” under 386-3 | If directed against the employee because of employment, could be an accident. | Such acts are not accidents within §386-3 when directed by colleagues. | May be considered an “accident” if directed against the employee because of employment. |
| Whether a co-employee is a “third person” under 386-3(a) | Co-employees may be third parties for purposes of the statute. | The statute contemplates a narrower scope for third parties. | Co-employees can be “third persons” under 386-3(a). |
| Whether Yang’s wrongful termination claim is barred or should be remanded | Claim should proceed insofar as it concerns public policy termination. | The wrongful termination claim may be barred by exclusivity. | Remanded; court cannot determine on record if claim is barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kamali v. Hawaiian Elec. Co., 54 Haw. 153, 504 P.2d 861 (Haw. 1972) (limits of exclusivity; certainty in compensation system)
- Estate of Coates v. Pacific Eng’g, 71 Haw. 358, 791 P.2d 1257 (Haw. 1990) (exclusive remedy policy; limits on limitations to exclusivity)
- Iddings v. Mee-Lee, 82 Haw. 1, 919 P.2d 263 (Haw. 1996) (willful and wanton misconduct immunity distinction for co-employees)
- Zemis v. SCI Contractors, Inc., 80 Haw. 442, 911 P.2d 77 (Haw. 1996) (willful act directed against employee because of employment required for coverage)
- Furukawa v. Honolulu Zoological Soc’y, 85 Haw. 7, 936 P.2d 643 (Haw. 1997) (exception for discrimination remedies; limitations on exclusivity)