Case Notes

• Publication year: 2018

CASE NOTES

Supreme Court

Civil Procedure

Hawaii Technology Academy v. Department of Educ., No. SCAP-15-0000520, December 5, 2017, (McKenna, J.). This case concerned whether the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission ("HCRC") has jurisdiction under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 368-1.5 (1993) over claims that a child was subjected to disability discrimination and improper denial of reasonable accommodations and modifications to take an on-line grade-level placement examination required of homeschooled students applying for entrance to Hawaii Technology Academy ("the Academy"). The Academy is a public charter school within Hawaii's statewide school district and is part of the State of Hawaii Department of Education. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that the HCRC lacked jurisdiction over the HCRC complaint because the legislature intended § 368-1.5 to provide the HCRC with jurisdiction over disability discrimination claims only when Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 does not apply, and Section 504 did apply to the HCRC complaint.

Constitutional

In the Application of Maui Electric Co., Ltd., No. SCWC-15-0000640, December 14, 2017, (Pollack, J., with Recktenwald, C.J. and Nakayama, J., dissenting). Article XI, section 9 of the Hawaii Constitution guarantees each person "the right to a clean and healthful environment, as defined by laws relating to environmental quality." Article I, section 5 provides that "[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." This case raised the issue of whether the protections of the due process clause applied to the right to a clean and healthful environment as defined by laws related to environmental quality. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that, under the circumstances of this case, the petitioners asserted a protectable property interest in a clean and healthful environment as defined by environmental regulations; that the agency decision adversely affected this interest; and that a due process hearing was required given the importance of the interest, the risk of an erroneous deprivation, and the governmental interests involved.

Recktenwald, C.J. joined by Nakayama, J., dissented. Recktenwald, C.J. dissented from the Majority's holding that Sierra Club had a right to intervene based on due process under the Hawaii Constitution. Recktenwald, C.J. readily acknowledged that the Sierra Club sought to raise important issues by participating in this proceeding, including ensuring that the PUC followed the direction, set forth in Haw. Rev. Stat. § 269-6(b) (Supp. 2013), to consider the need to reduce the State's reliance on fossil fuels in its decision making. However, Recktenwald, C.J. stated that the Hawaii Supreme Court...