1. (a) The commission shall have jurisdiction over the subject of discriminatory practices made unlawful by part I of chapter 489, chapter 515, part I of chapter 378, and this chapter; provided that the commission shall not have jurisdiction over claims within the scope of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L. 101-476, as amended. Any individual claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful discriminatory practice may file with the commission's executive director a complaint in writing that shall state the name and address of the person or party alleged to have committed the unlawful discriminatory practice complained of, set forth the particulars thereof, and contain other information as may be required by the commission. The attorney general, or the commission upon its own initiative, may, in like manner, make and file a complaint.
2. (b) A complaint may be filed on behalf of a class by the attorney general or the commission, and a complaint so filed may be investigated, conciliated, heard, and litigated on a class action basis.

3. (c) No complaint shall be filed after the expiration of one hundred eighty days after the date:

   1. (1) Upon which the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice occurred; or
   2. (2) Of the last occurrence in a pattern of ongoing discriminatory practice.
4. (d) For the purposes of this chapter "unlawful discriminatory practice" means an unfair discriminatory practice or like terms, as may be used in part I of chapter 489, chapter 515, or part I of chapter 378.

[L 1989, c 386, pt of §1; am L 1991, c 252, §3; am L 2001, c 55, §17(2), (3); am L 2021, c 164, §3]

Law Journals and Reviews

Viability of the Continuing Violation Theory in Hawai`i Employment Discrimination Law in the Aftermath of Ledbetter. 30 UH L. Rev. 423 (2008).

Case Notes

Plaintiff's submission of the pre-complaint questionnaire to the Hawaii civil rights commission constituted the filing of a complaint for purposes of calculating the state filing deadlines; plaintiff's complaint for state law sexual harassment was not filed with the commission in a timely manner. 468 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (2006).

The "single-filing" or "piggyback" rule applied under Hawaii law, where the "dual-filed" equal employment opportunity commission administrative complaints of four plaintiffs-intervenors were filed after the 180-day deadline in subsection (c) and the plaintiffs-intervenors sought to "piggyback" on the timely administrative complaints of three other plaintiffs-intervenors. 504 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (2007).

Other than a single statement that plaintiff claimed was an example of age discrimination, plaintiff did not provide any further clarification as to which specific acts comprised plaintiff's hostile work environment claim. Moreover, there appeared to be no allegation of any related conduct that occurred within the required time frame to file an age discrimination charge. Thus, the court rejected plaintiff's assertion that plaintiff's age discrimination claim was timely based upon a continuing violation theory. 140 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (2015).

Where original complaint was timely filed under subsection (c), amendment of complaint pursuant to Hawaii administrative rule §12-46-6.1 to add agent of employer responsible for alleged discriminatory conduct also did not violate statute of limitations under this section. 89 H. 269, 971 P.2d 1104 (1999).