 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hokama v. University of Hawaii12/22/1999
Plaintiff-appellant Yoshitsugi Hokama, Ph.D. (Dr. Hokama), appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee University of Hawai`i (university). On appeal, Dr. Hokama argues that the circuit court erred in concluding that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing the present lawsuit. Because the only viable claim in Dr. Hokama's complaint arises from the interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement (agreement), we affirm the circuit court's ruling. However, insofar as Dr. Hokama's error in this case was not unreasonable, we hold that Dr. Hokama is not presently barred by the contractual limitations period from pursuing his claim in the administrative forum. Dr. Hokama may file a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement within the applicable limitations period, as measured from the date of this opinion.
I. BACKGROUND
Dr. Hokama is a professor in the Pathology Department of the John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawai`i. While employed by the university, Dr. Hokama developed a methodology for detecting the presence of ciguatoxin in fish. The university, as Dr. Hokama's employer, asserted rights to Dr. Hokama's invention and, on May 25, 1990, assigned the test patent to Hawai`i Chemtect, Inc. (Chemtect), a California corporation.
On February 22, 1994, Chemtect filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California against Dr. Hokama and the University of Hawai`i for, inter alia, breach of contract and fraud. Dr. Hokama was sued individually and in his capacity as an agent of the university. Dr. Hokama retained attorney Daniel Lee to represent him in his individual capacity. On March 23, 1994, Dr. Hokama's counsel sent a letter to the university stating that "we believe the university . . . is legally required to respond to this lawsuit on behalf of . . . Dr. Hokama." On March 31, 1994, the State of Hawai`i, Department of the Attorney General (State), responded and declined to represent Dr. Hokama due to an alleged conflict of interest. The State informed Dr. Hokama's counsel that "Hokama should seek private legal representation to respond to the complaint." Dr. Hokama retained trial attorneys Philip Toomey in California and Jack Morse in Honolulu to represent him in the lawsuit.
Dr. Hokama thereafter requested assistance from the University of Hawai`i Professional Assembly (UHPA), the faculty union. UHPA tendered the request to its insurance carrier, Horace Mann Insurance Company. Horace Mann retained Bruce Gridley and Robert Nation, attorneys licensed in California, to defend Dr. Hokama. Gridley and Nation assumed the defense from Toomey. Dr. Hokama continued to retain the services of Lee and Morse in Hawai`i.
On January 30, 1995, Dr. Hokama filed a grievance based on article III, section D.1 of the 1993-95 collective bargaining agreement between UHPA and the university. After a hearing on March 20, 1995, the hearings officer rendered a Step 1 decision in favor of the university. Dr. Hokama appealed this decision on May 1, 1995.
A Step 2 grievance hearing was held on May 18, 1995. On June 2, 1995, the hearings officer issued a decision, finding that the claims against Dr. Hokama arose within the scope of his employment with the university and concluding that the university had a duty to defend Dr. Hokama. On September 13, 1995, the university hired attorney Alvin Ito to represent Dr. Hokama. The contract provided that the university would fund Ito's representation in an amount not to exceed $40,000. On December 12, 1995, Ito sent a letter to the university requesting an increase in the amount of authorized compensation to $7
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hawaii Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|