Garner v. State, Dept. of Educ.
| Decision Date | 30 October 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 27912.,27912. |
| Parties | David GARNER; Patricia Smith; Andrea Christie; Allan Kliternick; Karen Souza; Jo Jennifer Goldsmith; and David Hudson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, (Civil No. 03-1-0305) v. STATE of Hawai`i, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, (Civil No. 05-1-0031) and John Does 1-5, John Doe Corporations 1-5, John Doe Partnerships 1-5, Roe Non-Profit Corporations 1-5, and Roe Governmental Agencies 1-5, Defendants, and Allan Kliternick; David Garner; Jo Jennifer Goldsmith; and David Hudson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Patricia Hamamoto, in her official capacity as Superintendent of Schools; Shannon Ajifu, Mary Cochran, Maggie Cox, Breene Harimoto, CEC Heftel, Lei Ahu Isa, Karen Knudsen, Denise Matsumoto, Shirley A. Robinson, Laura Thielen, Garrett Toguchi, Herbert Watanabe, and Randall Yee, in their official capacities as members of the State Of Hawai`i Board of Education; Department of Education, State of Hawai`i, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
Paul Alston for Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees (Bruce H. Wakuzawa, Peter S. Knapman, and Mei-Fei Kuo of Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing; and Eric G. Ferrer, Honolulu; and Murray T.S. Lewis, of Lewis Law Firm, on the briefs).
William J. Wynhoff, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants (Dorothy Sellers, Solicitor General, on the briefs).
This interlocutory appeal and cross-appeal stem from two consolidated class-action lawsuits brought by substitute teachers (Plaintiffs or Substitute Teachers) who claimed that they were underpaid by the State of Hawai`i Department of Education (DOE). In Civil No. 03-1-0305 (Garner Action), Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees David Garner, Patricia Smith, Andrea Christie, Allan Kliternick, Karen Souza, Jo Jennifer Goldsmith, and David Hudson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (Garner Plaintiffs), sued the DOE and other unnamed defendants (Garner Defendants), seeking back pay for class members for the period from 1996 through the end of the 2003-2004 school year. In Civil No. 05-1-0031 (Kliternick Action), Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees Allan Kliternick, David Garner, Jo Jennifer Goldsmith, and David Hudson (Kliternick Plaintiffs) sued Patricia Hamamoto, in her official capacity as Superintendent of Schools, Shannon Ajifu, Mary Cochran, Maggie Cox, Breene Harimoto, Cec Heftel, Lei Ahu Isa, Karen Knudsen, Dennis Matsumoto, Shirley A. Robinson, Laura Thielen, Garrett Toguchi, Herbert Watanabe, and Randall Yee, in their official capacities as members of the State of Hawai`i Board of Education, and the DOE (Kliternick Defendants), seeking back pay from the start of the 2004-2005 school year onward (collectively, the Garner Defendants and Kliternick Defendants are referred to as the State or Defendants).
In this appeal, Plaintiffs challenge the following seven interlocutory orders certified by the Circuit Court for interlocutory appeal pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-1(b) (Supp.2005):
1. Order (1) Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues on Behalf of the Class for Class Claims as of November 8, 2000 to the Present, and for Related Injunctive Relief Filed July 13, 2004, and (2) Granting Defendant State of Hawai`i Department of Education's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint Filed January 29, 2004, filed on March 31, 2006 (Partial Summary Judgment Order #1);
2. Order (1) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment With Respect to Liability for Damages in Both Cases for the Period From November 8, 2000 to June 30, 2005, Filed November 10, 2005, and (2) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to All Claims and Parties, Filed November 10, 2005, filed on April 6, 2006 (Partial Summary Judgment Order # 2) 3. Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Claims Arising Before January 7, 2003 Filed December 27, 2005, filed April 18, 2006 (Partial Summary Judgment Order # 3);
4. Order Denying Plaintiffs Kliternick, Garner, Goldsmith, and Hudson's Motion for Award of Pre-judgment Interest Filed April 12, 2006, filed on April 18, 2006 (Pre-judgment Interest Order);
5. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended and Supplemented Complaint Filed October 21, 2004, filed April 18, 2006 (Order re Third Amended Complaint);
6. Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify the Class and Sub-Class Definitions, Filed July 23, 2004 and June 28, 2005, filed February 13, 2006, filed on April 27, 2006 (Order Denying Class Modification); and
7. Order Denying Diane Kawashima's Motion to Intervene Filed February 13, 2006, filed on April 27, 2006 in the Circuit Court (Order Denying Intervention).
(The foregoing seven orders are collectively referred to as Interlocutory Orders).1
On May 1, 2006, the State filed a timely notice of cross-appeal from the same Interlocutory Orders.
We hold that: (1) the Circuit Court did not err in summarily ruling that HRS § 661-5 (1993) bars the Substitute Teachers' claims against the State for back pay prior to November 8, 2000; (2) the Circuit Court did not err in concluding that, pursuant to HRS § 661-1 (1993), the Substitute Teachers' claim for breach-of-contract damages is not barred by sovereign immunity; (3) HRS § 302A-624(e) (Supp.2004), as a pay-mandating statute, provided an alternative basis for invoking the court's jurisdiction under the "founded upon any statute" language in HRS § 661-1; (4) the Substitute Teachers' claim for pre-judgment interest is barred by HRS § 661-8 (1993); (5) the Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs' request to modify class and sub-class definitions to include part-time employees; (6) the Circuit Court did not err in entering the Order Denying Intervention; (7) the Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion when it entered the Order re Third Amended Complaint; (8) the Circuit Court did not err in concluding that, although claims prior to November 8, 2000 were barred, Plaintiffs' claims for pay due from November 8, 2000 through June 30, 2005 were not barred by the statute of limitation because, inter alia, the statute of limitations applicable to these periodic pay claims began to run on each paycheck as it became due; and (9) the Circuit Court did not err when it concluded that the State violated its obligation to pay the per diem rate prescribed by HRS § 302A-624(e) during the period from November 8, 2000 to June 30, 2005.
In 1996, the Hawai`i Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 2446, entitled "A Bill for an Act Relating to the Recodification of the Education Statutes," which was enacted into law as Act 89 upon its approval by the Governor on June 7, 1996 (Act 89). 1996 Haw. Sess. L. 124. Section 2 of Act 89 amended the HRS by adding a new chapter that was subsequently codified as HRS Chapter 302A. Included in the new chapter was § 724, which was renumbered by the revisor of statutes as HRS § 302A-624. See 1997 HRS Cum.Supp. at 135.
This lawsuit stems from the Substitute Teachers' allegation that the State did not comply with HRS § 302A-624(e), as it was enacted by the 1996 Legislature. Subsection (e) of HRS § 302A-624 established a per diem rate of pay for substitute teachers based on a "Class II teacher" classification:
(e) Effective July 1, 1996, the per diem rate for substitute teachers shall be based on the annual entry step salary rate established for a Class II teacher on the most current teachers' salary schedule. The per diem rate shall be derived from the annual rate in accordance with the following formula:
Per Diem Rate = Annual Salary Rate ÷ 12 months ÷ 21 Average Working Days Per Month.
Act 89 included the following definition of a Class II teacher, which was codified as HRS § 302A-618(b)(2): "A Class II teacher is any teacher who holds a certificate issued by the department based upon four acceptable years of college education and other requirements as may be established by the department[.]" 1996 Haw. Sess. L. 141. Subsection (e) remained in effect as enacted until June 30, 2005, when it was amended by Act 70, 2005 Haw. Sess. L. 152 (Act 70).2 See HRS § 302A-624(e) (Supp.2005). None of the issues in this appeal concern HRS § 302A-624(e) (Supp.2005) as amended by Act 70. Unless specifically stated otherwise, all further references to HRS § 302A-624(e) mean and refer to HRS § 302A-624(e) (Supp.2004).
The Substitute Teachers allege that the State failed to pay them in accordance with HRS § 302A-624(e). The Garner Plaintiffs sought back pay for class members hired by the State from 1996 through the end of the 2003-2004 academic year. The Kliternick Plaintiffs sought the same remedy for people employed from and after the start of the 2004-2005 academic year.
According to the Substitute Teachers, complaints were first made to the DOE in 2001 alleging that substitute teachers were not being paid the rate provided for in HRS § 302A-624(e). When these complaints were not satisfactorily resolved, the Garner Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint on November 8, 2002. A First Amended Complaint was filed on December 2, 2002, a Second Amended Complaint was filed on January 29, 2004, and a Third Amended and Supplemented Complaint (Third Amended Complaint) was filed on January 6, 2005.
The Third Amended Complaint alleged that the Garner Defendants had violated HRS § 302A-624(e) by underpaying the Garner Plaintiffs as substitute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Miller
-
Aana v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc.
... ... filed their original Complaint on December 13, 2011 in the state court. On May 4, 2012, Defendants filed their Notice of Removal of Mass ... 10 (D.Hawai'i 2009) (citing Medeiros v. Haw. Dept. of Labor & Indus. Relations, 108 Hawai'i 258, 276, 118 P.3d 1201, 1219 ... limitations with respect to tortious conduct that is ongoing.” Garner v. State Dep't of Educ., 122 Hawai'i 150, 168, 223 P.3d 215, 233 ... ...
- York Cnty. v. Propertyinfo Corp.
-
In re Arbitration Between Haw. State Teachers Ass'n, SCWC-11-0000065.
...sovereign immunity directly conflicts with HRS § 661-8 (1993),14 and two Hawai`i cases: Taylor-Rice and Garner v. State Dep't of Educ., 122 Haw. 150, 223 P.3d 215 (App. 2009). The State contends that these two cases held that a general waiver of sovereign immunity is not enough to specifica......