Case Notes

• Jurisdiction: Hawaii,United States
• Citation: Vol. 19 No. 04
• Publication year: 2015

CASE NOTES

Supreme Court

State v. Alangcas, No. SGWG-30109, February 9, 2014, (Pollack, J.).

The appeal in this case challenged the constitutionality of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-756, electronic enticement of a child in the first degree, on overbreadth, vagueness, and dormant commerce clause grounds. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the ICA and concluded that, based upon the plain language of the statute, its legislative history, and principles of statutory construction, the felonious intent of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-756 applied only to the agreement element of that statute. Having duly considered the scope of the statute, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-756 was neither unconstitutionally overbroad nor vague and its application did not violate the dormant commerce clause.

Labor

Adams v. CDM Media, Inc., No. SCWC-12-0000741, February 24, 2015, (Pollack, J.; Recktenwald, C.J. and Nakayama, J., concurring and dissenting). Appellant filed a complaint in the circuit court alleging that she had been subjected to employment discrimination in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-2. Appellant claimed that Appellee's decision not to hire Appellant was due to her age. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because Appellee did not satisfy its burden to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for declining to hire Appellant, and therefore pretext was not required to be considered by the circuit court.

Recktenwald, C.J. and Nakayama, J. agreed with the majority that summary judgment should not have been granted but disagreed with the majority's reasoning. The disagreement centers on a seemingly technical question of employment discrimination law: how to apply the second step of the three-step burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and adopted by the Hawaii Supreme Court in Shoppe v. Gucci Am., Inc., 94 Hawaii 368, 378, 14 P.3d 1049, 1059 (2000). The majority's test would accordingly unsettle what has become a well-established standard both in federal courts and in Hawaii.

Appeal Pointers

A statement of jurisdiction may be stricken unless a copy of the judgment or order appealed from is attached to it. HRAP 12.1(d).

Intermediate Court of Appeals

Contract

Perry v. Williams, No. GAAP-13-0003357, February 25, 2015, (Foley, J.). The instant case arises from an alleged default on a promissory note. Appellant contended that the circuit court erred by denying his motion to...