PayThePeople.com

Posts Tagged ‘BASICS’

According Ediger (2000), elementary school career education is important. Ediger stated that “the elementary school years are not too early to begin to achieve a vision of what one desires to do in life contributing to the world of work”. Without career education, students have unrealistic perceptions of careers due to a lack of knowledge and poor decision making. Students have limited knowledge and exposure to careers. (2,3) When students look at the different industries e.g. sports, media and entertainment, most students underestimate the skills and time required to have successful careers. (3)

The Basics for Elementary School Career Education Programs

In career awareness programs, students do not make premature career choices. Elementary school career education is not career exploration or career preparation. Elementary students remain open to new career ideas and possibilities. (7,8,13,15) Elementary students build awareness of self, personal interactions, school, and the workforce. (2,15) Elementary school counselors and teachers build self-awareness, family awareness, school awareness, community awareness, career/ work awareness, attitude development, skill development, decision making strategies, and self-worth. (2,4,11)

Career awareness programs use age appropriate materials that match the developmental levels of the students. Age appropriate activities expose students to a variety of different jobs, career information sources, and the reasons why people work. Programs also incorporate academic career pathways into classroom activities. According to CareerTec (2000), the preliminary career education skills serve as foundations for future skills. As the students progress, previous skills are reinforced, developed, and expanded. (2,4,11)

As elementary students get older, the students modify career visions and goals. After completing an elementary school career awareness program, students have higher grades, higher academic achievement, improved school involvement, as well as an increase in career awareness exploration, personal, and interpersonal skills. (1,15) In addition, the students complete more complex courses and have a higher graduation rate from high school. (9)

In summary, in career programs, students:

Learn and apply the academic material

Know and value self

Build self-esteem and confidence

Identify interests and build relationships between the school environment and the work force

Build academic, communication, problem solving, and social skills

Increase awareness of the need for future jobs skills

See the connections between learning in school, academic skills, job related skills, and careers

See career possibilities

See themselves as a future contributor to the job force

Receive empowerment

Build self-determination (2,7,9)

Examples of Elementary School Career Education Resources

Career awareness programs widely use tools are the Individual Career Plan (ICP) and the Individual Career Develop Portfolio. According to the Ohio State Department of Education (2000), Individual Career Plans (ICP) are essential for the development of self-awareness, employability skills, decision making and goal setting, community involvement, economics, and the reduction of bias. Students use the Individual Career Plans as they identify and explore initial career goals and educational plans. Elementary students use Individual Career Plan (ICP) to develop skills and to prepare to make future educational and career decisions. (12)

Another important tool is the Individual Career Develop Portfolio. Individual Career Develop Portfolios are collections of the career awareness activities and experiences that have occurred during the school year. (12) Other elementary school career awareness activities include:

Artistic displays

Career Days

Career Fairs

Career research

Career videos

Collages, murals

Community speakers

Educational games

Family group discussions

Field trips

Information interviewing

Job shadowing

Library book report

Mentors

Poetry

Phonics

Pictured dictionary

Puppets

Role playing

Scrapbook

Story reading

Student group discussions

Word search and comprehension activities (8,9,11,12,16)

Elementary school programs help students build connections between academics and real life situations. (9) Teachers and counselors use career education principles to stress the importance of language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science. Language arts have many uses in the workplace: Reading, writing, and listening skills. The uses for Mathematics include: Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division skills to solve problems. In Social Studies, students gain understanding about other countries, languages, cultures, and the aspects of living in a global marketplace. Students learn the importance of Science having skills to solve problems as well as understanding how science is involved in different industries, such as food, media, agricultural, and automotive industries. (8)

Guidelines for Elementary Education Career Resources – National Career Development Guidelines

The NCDG Guidelines is a career knowledge, skills, and decision-making framework. The NCDG framework has three domains, goals, and indicators. Teachers and counselors use the domains, goals, and indicators as guidelines to design and create career resources. The three domains are: Personal Social Development (PS), Educational Achievement and Lifelong Learning (ED), and Career Management (CM). Each domain represents a developmental area in a career education program. Under each domain are goals or competencies. Under each goal, indicators highlight the knowledge and skills needed to achieve the goal. The National Career Development Guidelines (NCDG) is the foundation for career education products, research development, tests and tools. (14)

Summary

Elementary school career education programs build self-awareness, family awareness, school awareness, community awareness, career/ work awareness, attitude development, skill development, decision making strategies, and self-worth. Elementary school career awareness programs use age appropriate materials that match the developmental levels of the students. As a results of career education, schools reported that students had higher grades and academic achievement, improvement in school involvement and performance, as well as an increase in career awareness exploration, personal, and interpersonal skills. Career awareness activities include Individual Career Plan (ICP), Individual Career Develop Portfolio (ICDP), Career Days, Career Fairs, Field trips, information interviewing, and library book report.

References

1. American Counseling Association, Office of Public Policy and Legislation. (2007). Effectiveness of School Counseling. Alexandria, VA: Author.

2. Angel, N. Faye; Mooney, Marianne. (1996, December). Work-in-Progress: Career and Work Education for Elementary Students. (ED404516). Cincinnati, OH: Paper presented at the American Vocational Association Convention.

3. Benning, Cathleen; Bergt, Richard; Sausaman, Pamela. (2003, May). Improving Student Awareness of Careers through a Variety of Strategies. Thesis: Action Research Project. (ED481018). Chicago, Illinois: Saint Xavier University.

4. Career Tec. (2000). K-12 Career Awareness & Development Sequence [with Appendices, Executive and Implementation Guide]. (ED450219) .Springfield, Il: Author.

5. Carey, John. (2003, January). What are the Expected Benefits Associated with Implementing a Comprehensive Guidance Program. School counseling Research Brief 1.1. Amherst, MA: Fredrickson Center for School Counseling Outcome Research.

6. Dare, Donna E.; Maddy-Bernstein, Carolyn. (1999, September). Career Guidance Resource Guide for Elementary and Middle/Junior High School Educators. (ED434216). Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

7. DuVall, Patricia. (1995).Let’s Get Serious about Career Education for Elementary Students. AACE Bonus Briefs. (ED386603). Hermosa Beach, CA: AACE Bonus Briefs.

8. Ediger, Marlow. (2000, July). Vocational Education in the Elementary School. (ED442979) Opinion Papers

9. Gerver, Miriam, Shanley, Judy, O Cummings, Mindee. (2/14/02). Answering the Question EMSTAC Extra Elementary and Middle Schools. Washington, DC: Technical Assistance Center, (EMSTAC).

10. Hurley, Dan, Ed.; Thorp, Jim, Ed. (2002, May). Decisions without Direction: Career Guidance and Decision-Making among American Youth. (ED465895). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Ferris State University Career Institute for Education and Workforce Development.

11. Maddy-Bernstein, Carolyn; Dare, Donna E. (1997,December).Career Guidance for Elementary and Middle School Students. Office of Student Services Brief, v9 n1. (ED415353). Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

12. Ohio Department of Education, Division of Vocational and Career Education, Ohio Career Development Blueprint, Individual Career Plan, K to 5 (ED449322). Columbus, Ohio, 2000

13. Splete, Howard; Stewart, Amy. (1990). Competency-Based Career Development Strategies and the National Career Development Guidelines. Information Series No. 345. (ED327739). Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Clearinghouse on Education and Training for Employment & Ohio State University

14. U.S. Department of Education Office of Vocational and Adult Education. (1994, 2004). National Career Development Guidelines (NCDG). Washington, DC: Author.

15. Williams, Jean A., Ed. (1999, January). Elementary Career Awareness Guide: A Resource for Elementary School Counselors and Teachers. (ED445293). Raleigh, NC: NC Department of Public Instruction, NC Job Ready.

16. Woal, S. Theodore. (1995). Career Education–The Early Years. AACE Bonus Briefs. (ED386603). Hermosa Beach, CA: AACE Bonus Briefs.

HAWAII EMPLOYMENT LAW BASICS: PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION LAW UNDER FEDERAL AND HAWAII LAW

INTRODUCTION:

Along with other types of claims, there has been a significant increase in pregnancy discrimination complaints nationwide. The increase in the number of complaints has outpaced the increase in percentage of women in the workforce during the same period.

Accordingly, it is clear that employers need to become more aware of their obligations towards pregnant employees, especially under Hawaii state law, which covers all employers, and permits not only individual liability for violations of the law, but also unlimited punitive and compensatory damages to be awarded a plaintiff.

FEDERAL LAW AND HAWAII LAW ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT WITH RESPECT TO PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) makes it unlawful for an employer to limit, segregate or classify employees or applicants for employment in any manner which deprives or tends to deprive an individual of employment opportunities because of the individuals race, color religion, sex or national origin. Generally, the law covers all employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce with 15 or more employees.

Title VII was amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) to prohibit all forms of discrimination in employment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Under PDA, pregnant employees must not be treated less favorably than a non-pregnant employee under similar circumstances.

Under the PDA, pregnant employees must not be treated less favorably than a non-pregnant employee under similar circumstances. Thus, an employer that refuses to hire or promote a female because of pregnancy has violated PDA. Also, an employer that forces a pregnant employee to take a leave of absence despite being able to perform her job has violated PDA. Conversely, it is unlawful to force a pregnant employee to continue performing work she is incapable of doing due to her pregnant condition from which other similarly situated disabled employees are excused.

If the employee litigates her federal PDA claim the available remedies include the Court: Issuing an injunction prohibiting the employer from committing future violations of the law; granting equitable relief such as reinstatement or promotion; awarding back pay limited for a period beginning two years before the date the charge of discrimination was filed, less any interim earnings; awarding front pay, and; reasonable attorneys fees.

In addition, the total amount of compensatory and punitive damages are limited depending on the size of the employer. Specifically, the caps are set by statute as follows:

Number of Employees Cap

015-100 employees $ 050,000

101-200 employees $ 100,000

201-500 employees $ 200,000

500 plus employees $ 300,000

Under the Hawaii Employment Practices Act, HRS Chapter 378, covered employers are prohibited from discriminating in public and private employment on the basis of sex. Like PDA, Hawaii law prohibits discriminating against women in employment because of pregnancy.

There are significant differences between PDA and Hawaii law. First, the Hawaii statute covers any employer with one or more employees, thus affecting many small business owners that perhaps lack resources to fully educate themselves on the law or implement risk reduction policies and procedures.

Second, while it is clear under federal law that individual employees cannot be held individually liable for adverse decisions deemed unlawful under the law, there is virtually uniform authority amongst state court judges that no such protection is afforded under state law. Thus, supervisors along with the employer are commonly named as individuals in lawsuits filed by plaintiffs in Hawaii state court pursuant to HRS Chapter 378.

Third, while federal law simply requires the employer to treat a pregnant employee as it would similarly situated non-pregnant employees under Hawaii law employers are required to do much more. Specifically, Hawaii law requires by regulatory mandate that employers make every reasonable accommodation to the needs of the female affected by disability due to and resulting from pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

Regardless of the policies applicable to non-pregnant disabled employees, female employees who are disabled due to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions must be permitted to take a leave of absence, paid or unpaid, for a reasonable period of time. A reasonable period of time is that time determined by the employees health care provider.

Hawaii law requires the reinstatement of an employee returning from pregnancy leave to her original job or to a position of comparable pay, without loss of accumulated service credits and privileges. Prior to the employees return to work the employer may request a physicians certificate approving her return to work.

Finally, and in many cases most significantly, under Hawaii law a court may award unlimited punitive and compensatory damages in cases brought under HRS Chapter 378.

CONCLUSION:

PDA and the Hawaii Employment Practices Act are significantly different in scope and breadth. Under federal law employers must remember to treat pregnant employees the same as similarly situated employees. However, under Hawaii law employers are required to afford pregnant special protections regardless of how similarly situated employees are treated. Employers should seek counsel if they have questions regarding the law.

Roman Amaguin, Esq.; romanamaguin@yahoo.com; www.amaguinlaw.com

Roman Amaguin, Esq. is a Hawaii lawyer specializing in employment law, labor law, and civil litigation.

EMPLOYMENT LAW BASICS FOR HAWAII EMPLOYERS: ILLINOIS RULING HIGHLIGHTS THE IMPORTANCE OF POLICIES AND TRAINING TO HAWAII EMPLOYERS

It is well established now under federal Title VII law that an employer is liable for actionable sexual harassment caused by a supervisor with “immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee.” However, in cases where the employee does not suffer a “tangible employment action,” such as discharge, demotion, or an unfavorable reassignment, there is an affirmative defense that an employer may raise to avoid Title VII liability and damages.

Under such affirmative defense whether an employer has an anti-harassment policy is relevant evidence. Also important is effective supervisory training and training of employees on the harassment policy and complaint procedure.

Training and educational programs for all employees take on an even higher degree of importance under Hawaii state law, HRS Chapter 378. State law currently is interpreted by the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) as mandating strict liability for sexual harassment committed by supervisors.

While the Hawaii Supreme Court has not addressed the HCRCs interpretation of HRS Chapter 378 a recent Illinois Supreme Court decision upheld a Illinois Human Rights Commission ruling addressing a regulation similar to the HCRCs–that an employer was strictly liable for a supervisors harassing conduct under Illinois state law even though the supervisor did not even have direct supervisory authority over the Complainant.

The April 16, 2009 Illinois decision will certainly be persuasive authority to a Hawaii Supreme Court faced with interpreting the HCRCs regulation. Accordingly, it is critical that Hawaii employers understand the importance of having an effective policy and company-wide training program on not only a defense to a sexual harassment claim, but prevention.

I. The Importance of Having an Effective Harassment Policy

A. The Faragher/Ellerth Defense

Having an effective sexual harassment policy and training program will greatly increase the chance of avoiding liability under the affirmative defense for sexual harassment claims recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (Faragher) and Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 523 U.S. 742 (1998) (Ellerth).

Where alleged harassment by a supervisor does not culminate in an adverse (tangible) employment decision, the employer may avoid liability by showing that: (1) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassing behavior; and (2) the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer to avoid harm. “A tangible employment action constitutes a significant change in employment status such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” Ellerth, supra.

The importance of the Faragher/Ellerth defense was significantly increased by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004), which held that the defense is available in constructive discharge cases unless the plaintiff quits in a reasonable response to an employer-sanctioned adverse action of an official nature, such as a demotion or a cut in pay.

A zero-tolerance harassment policy must fit the environment and employees. The Ellerth court stated:

While proof that an employer had promulgated an antiharassment policy with complaint procedure is not necessary in every instance as a matter of law, the need for a stated policy suitable to the employment circumstances may appropriately be addressed in any case when litigating the first element of the defense. The policy should be written in plain English, so that all employees regardless of their educational level or background can understand it … [a] policy should include a clear and precise definition of unlawful harassment so that employees know what type of conduct is prohibited by the policy and will be able to recognize that conduct should it occur.

Accordingly, if the alleged harasser has supervisory authority over the victim, the employer will be held automatically liable for any harassment committed by the supervisor unless the employer is able to successfully raise the affirmative defense.

B. Tips On Drafting a Zero-Tolerance Policy and Complaint Procedure.

(1) Write in simple English.

(2) Include a clear definition and examples of prohibited conduct and make it broad enough to prohibit all forms of harassment.

(3) State the companys “zero-tolerance” philosophy in the policy regarding all forms of harassment,

(4) Designate at least two specially trained managers who will be responsible for investigating harassment complaints for the company.

(5) Determine the complaint procedure that will be used to investigate complaints of harassment by supervisory employees, co-workers and outsiders.

(6) Provide a “clear chain of communication,” allowing employees to step outside of the normal hierarchy in the event the supervisor is the harasser and consider having a toll-free number employees can call.

(7) State that employees who report prohibited conduct will be protected from retaliation.

(8) State that the employer will promptly investigate the matter in an objective and discrete manner.

(9) Provide the form of disciplinary action to which offenders can expect to be subjected.

(10) State that the employer will also take remedial action.

(11) Train your management employees and line employees on the policy and procedure.

(12) Have each employee sign an acknowledgment form that they have received a copy of the policy and procedure, and that they have received training on the harassment policy.

C. The Faragher/Ellerth Defense and Hawaii Law

Like Title VII, the Hawaii Employment Practices Act prohibits discriminating against individuals in virtually all aspects of employment. However, it remains an open question whether an employer, under Hawaii state law, can assert the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense.

Currently, under regulations promulgated by the HCRC, the state agency charged with the enforcing and interpreting Hawaiis Employment Practices Act, strict liability would apply to a supervisors harassment of a subordinate regardless of whether tangible action is taken:

12-46-109 Sexual harassment.

(a) Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of chapter 378, HRS. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct or visual forms of harassment of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when:

(1) Submission to that conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment; or

(2) Submission to or rejection of that conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting that individual; or

(3) That conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

(b) In determining whether alleged conduct constitutes sexual harassment, the commission will look at the record as a whole and at the totality of the circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. The determination of the legality of a particular action will be made from the facts, on a case by case basis.

(c) An employer shall be responsible for its acts and those of its agents and supervisory employees with respect to sexual harassment regardless of whether the specific acts complained of were authorized or even forbidden, and regardless of whether the employer or other covered entity knew or should have known of their occurrence. The commission will examine the circumstances of the particular employment relationship and the job functions performed by the individual in determining whether an individual acted in either a supervisory or agency capacity.

(d) With respect to conduct between employees, an employer shall be responsible for acts of sexual harassment in the workplace where the employer or its agents or supervisory employees knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. An employee who has been sexually harassed on the job by a co-worker should inform the employer, its agent, or supervisory employee of the harassment; however, an employee’s failure to give such notice may not be an affirmative defense.

D. Problem Areas for Employers

* Inadequate complaint procedure

* Failure to disseminate policy

* Employer on notice of harassment

* Failure to promptly investigate

* Failure to take appropriate disciplinary action

* Failure to apply it even-handedly

* Failure to review and revise when necessary

* Failure to provide training

E. Illinois Supreme Court Decision a Foreshadowing of Hawaii Law?

In Sangamon Cty Sheriffs Dept v. The Illinois Human Rights Commn, Nos. 105517, 105518 cons. (Ill. Apr. 16, 2009), decided on April 16, 2009, the Illinois Supreme Court gave the HCRC direct support of the HCRCs own interpretation of HRS Chapter 378.

The Sangamon decision holds Illinois employers strictly liable for sexual harassment by any of their management or supervisory personnel, and, as noted by the dissent, imposes a standard of liability which appears to be without precedent in any jurisdiction of the United States.

In that case employee Feleccia filed a sexual harassment claim against employer Sangamon County Sheriffs Department and Ron Yanor, who was a supervisor, but was not Feleccias direct supervisor. The Illinois Human Rights Commission ruled that the Sheriffs Department was strictly liable for Yanors conduct under the Act because Yanor was a supervisor. The Illinois appellate court reversed, and Feleccia and the Commission appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.

The Illinois Supreme Court reversed and confirmed the Commissions decision. In a 4-2 ruling, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed that the Sheriffs Department could be held strictly liable in such circumstances. The basis of the decision was the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute, which states that an employer shall be responsible for sexual harassment of the employers employees by nonemployees or nonmanagerial and nonsupervisory employees only if the employer becomes aware of the conduct and fails to take reasonable corrective measures.

According to the Court, the statute is unambiguous and only excludes nonemployees and nonmanagerial or nonsupervisory employees from its strict liability standard. As such, the Court found [t]here is no language in the Act that limits the employers liability based on the harassers relationship to the victim. The Court rejected the employers argument that federal case law should apply to the case.

II. The Importance of Conducting EEO Training

Of course, in Hawaii the HCRC has merely interpreted HRS Chapter 378s statutory language to impose strict liability for supervisory harassment. Unlike the Illinois statute interpreted by the Illinois Supreme Court it is reasonable to argue that Hawaii statutory law is ambiguous and not straightforward.

Nevertheless, the HCRC is charged with the interpretation and enforcement of HRS Chapter 378 and it does not bode well for Hawaii employers that another states high court is willing to impose what some would consider harsh penalties on the employer defendant. Accordingly, employers in Hawaii should redouble its efforts to train supervisors AND employees regularly on preventing discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Training should include the consequences of violating company policy.

Training employees reduces the likelihood that inappropriate conduct will be engaged in or tolerated at a level that can create a hostile environment. See Arquero v. Hilton Hawaiian Village, 104 Hawaii 423, 91 P.3d 505 (2004) (coworker pinched buttocks of the plaintiff on two occasions); Nelson v. University of Hawaii, 97 Hawaii 376, 38 P.3d 95 (2001) (verbal harassment).

Second, in the event that inappropriate conduct takes place, employees who are offended will be substantially more likely to use the employer’s complaint procedure, thereby permitting the employer to remedy the situation and avoid having a lawsuit filed against it.

Lastly, training is a tool for prevention and reducing the potential of supervisory harassment.

A. Training as a Tool for Prevention

The EEOC’s Policy Guidance on Sexual Harassment states:

An employer should ensure that its supervisors and managers understand their responsibilities under the organization’s anti-harassment policy and complaint procedure. Periodic training of those individuals can help achieve that result. Such training should explain the types of conduct that violate the employer’s anti-harassment policy; the seriousness of the policy; the responsibilities of supervisors and managers when they learn of alleged harassment; and the prohibition against retaliation.

The HCRC regulations state that prevention is the best tool for the elimination of sexual harassment. Employers should affirmatively raise the subject, express strong disapproval, develop appropriate sanctions, inform employees of their right to raise and how to raise the issue of sexual harassment, and take any other steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment from occurring. 12-46-109(g).

As part of its settlements against employers, the EEOC and HCRC have chosen mandatory training as one of its primary responses through the use of consent decrees requiring organizations to conduct training and ensure policy compliance.

In 2004, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1825, requiring all employers with fifty or more employees to conduct compulsory sexual harassment training for all of its supervisory employees by January of 2006, thus supporting the EEOC and HCRCs position that training and education is the best tool for prevention. Under the California law, the training must re-occur every two years, and all new supervisors brought in after the original round of training must go through the program within six months of their arrival.

Managers who are aware of the implications of sexual harassment may be less likely to take official action they realize will create vicarious liability for the organization – this may preserve the employer’s right to the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense in a case of constructive discharge. Further, managers who are aware of how to proceed with complaints from employees about harassment are more likely to intervene with an appropriate employer response thus making a stronger showing under the first prong of the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense.

Finally, as noted throughout this article training can be an effective tool to combat inappropriate behavior by supervisors and to reduce risks under state lawespecially to the extent it is interpreted similar to the Illinois Supreme Courts decision.

B. Training and the Faragher/Ellerth Defense

Conducting training will greatly increase the chance of avoiding liability under the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense. The importance of this defense was significantly increased by the Suders decision, which held that the defense is available in constructive discharge cases unless the plaintiff quits in a reasonable response to an employer-sanctioned adverse action of an official nature, such as a demotion or a cut in pay.

The training of rank and file employees should be documented and if it is to be conducted on a regular basis, can include a certification by the employee that he or she has not been subject to any policy violations since the last training.

C. Training and Damages Issues Under Hawaii Law

Generally, individuals cannot be found liable for violations under federal law. Under Hawaii law, however, courts may award unlimited punitive and compensatory damages.

Significantly, unlike under Title VII individuals can be held liable for violations of Hawaiis Employment Practices Act. See HRS 378-1 (defining employer to include any person) and 378-2 (3) (making it unlawful for any person to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of any of the discriminatory practices forbidden by this part, or to attempt to do so.); Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, 96 Hawaii 408; 32 P.3d 52, 93-94 (2001) (holding individuals may be found liable under Hawaii Employment Practices law).

Thus, training employees may alert them to the financial risks they take when they engage in behaviors prohibited by Hawaii law.

D. Training to Reduce Exposure to Punitive Damages

In Kolstad v. American Dental Association, the Court held that “in the punitive damages context, an employer may not be vicariously liable for the discriminatory employment decisions of managerial agents where these decisions are contrary to the employer’s ‘good-faith efforts to comply with Title VII.’” Accordingly, compliance efforts are both necessary and sufficient to avoid liability for punitive damages.

Roman Amaguin, Esq.; http://www.virtualhawaiiemploymentlawyer.com; http://www.amaguinlaw.com