Posts

Hey everyone, today’s Law in the Brief will be really brief!  I got some other interesting information to share as well.

Act 141:  Relating to Small Claims Court; Monetary Limit increased from $3,500 to $5,000

The Hawaii State Legislature was keen on access to justice issues this past session. The big one was ILAF (which I wrote a Civil Beat article urging passage of the bill) and at this past week’s Hawaii State Bar Convention the two attorneys responsible, Mihoko Ito and Gary Slovin, both with the law firm of Goodsill, Anderson, Quinn and Stifel, were recognized with the Ki’e Ki’e Award for their outstanding pro bono work (congratulations).

Anyway, another law making it easier for people to access justice is Act 141. This bill increased the maximum monetary claim that may be filed in small claims court; the prior maximum was $3,500 and with Act 141 it is now $5,000.

This is great for people seeking redress on a smaller level, but had disputes with a monetary value over $3,500.  If you were above that amount you would have to file a claim in another court, which had much higher filing fees. Right now, Small Claims Court has $35.00, whereas Regular Claims it is a $120.00. The advantage of filing in Small Claims as well is that it is typically simple, informal, and the cases resolved more quickly. Many business owners and landlords/property managers use Small Claims Court to resolve problems with damage to or repossession of stolen business property (i.e. shopping carts) and leased or rental properties.

For more information on Small Claims Court click here.

No Resolutions for LLCs

While at the bar convention last week Friday (9/23) I attended both the Corporations and LLC seminars. After all I had just conducted a talk on Business Entity Formation at Hawaii’s first coworking space, The Box Jelly. So I like to keep myself updated, so I can update clients as well. During my seminar, I discussed the difference in terminology between a LLC and Corporation. I also mentioned how important it is to understand those differences. One of the panelists at the LLC seminar proved the point.

Many of the formalities needed in a Corporation, are not needed in a LLC. One of those unneeded formalities are resolutions. The panelist bemoaned how many local bank personnel keep requesting her to draft resolutions for her client LLCs to authorize a loan. Her response, as would be mine to the bank is:

LLCs DO NOT NEED RESOLUTIONS TO AUTHORIZE ACTIONS.

This is one of the things I covered at my talk.  So if you missed my Business Entity Formations seminar not to worry I will be doing one again probably in a month (so Subscribe to this Blawg to find out when).

In the meantime, do not forget to sign up for my next talk on Social Media and the Law this Wed. (9/28) at The Box Jelly, starting 6:00 p.m. It will be $10 for The Box Jelly members and $15 for non-members. Materials are included.

Go to my Facebook page for info and invite. Also I would be happy to do a legal seminar for a gathering of more than 10 people. Contact me for details.

HSBA’s Pacific Business News Road to Regulatory Compliance Insert

Also at the bar convention Pacific Business News was handing out its current issue of (Vol. 49, No. 30). In it (right after the article on Hawaii’s awesome social media stars Toby Tamaye and Melissa Chang!) is the Hawaii State Bar Association’s insert Path to Regulatory Compliance. In it are several brief articles on new laws affecting Hawaii businesses. I recommend checking it out, especially the one on Protecting Gender Expression or Identity in the Workplace on page 11.

You might find that the author and the topic are familiar if you read this blawg regularly.

See you all Friday for Draw the Law wrapping up those worker privacy issues I have been discussing.

*Disclaimer:  This post discusses general legal issues, but does not constitute legal advice in any respect.  No reader should act or refrain from acting based on information contained herein without seeking the advice of counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.  Ryan K. Hew, Attorney At Law, LLLC expressly disclaims all liability in respect to any actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this post.

Act 34: Protecting Gender Expression or Identity in the Workplace

Business Impact: Act 34 prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression as a matter of public policy, specifically with regards to employment.  Basically, if you or the work environment you foster is insensitive to gender expression or identity of your employees, you may face enforcement action by the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission for discriminatory practices.  Discriminating against an employee expressing their preferred gender would be the same as discriminating against women, handicapped persons, or people of a certain race.

Specifics of the Law:  This new law amends two parts of Hawaii law, Section 368 and 378.  By amending Section 368, the law gives the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) the enforcement power over gender identity or expression discrimination cases.  In addition, by amending Section 378, the law aims to prevent discrimination in the workplace by making gender expression and identity a protected status similar to other categories, such as disability, race, age, and sexual orientation.

What Does “Gender Identity or Expression” Mean?

As you may already know the State already protects sexual orientation from discrimination.  You may think that sufficiently covers what is known as “gender identity or expression.”  However, that is not necessarily the case.

Sexual orientation is only describing one’s preference based on the gender of the partner.  In terms of gender expression and identity, a transgender person can have any sexual orientation.  Basically, the gender status is not the same as one sexual preference.  Gender identity is one’ internal feelings of being male or female or along those lines.  Gender expression represents all of the social and behavioral characteristics associated with femaleness or maleness.

Example

Consider a male truck driver wishing to make the transition to female.  Their appearance at work continues to be more and more feminine.  Other workers, due to the change, harass the transitioning worker.  The truck driver comes to you to discuss the harassment and gender transition.  If you suspend them for this action, then you would likely  face a visit from the HCRC for discriminating against your employee’s gender expression and identity.

Bottom line:  Is your company’s policies and procedures equipped to handle this change in the law?  Does your handbook reflect the changes?  Consider the following situations for reasonable accommodation or to prevent bias in the workplace:

  • Restrooms
  • Self-identification papers, check cards, etc . . .
  • Housing and facilities like locker/dress rooms
  • Dress code

There may be other situations that you may need to safeguard from gender expression or identity discrimination.  You should consider a legal review of your work policies, procedures, and handbooks.

Next law to be covered: Act 37, allowing non-profits to take actions by ballot and electronic voting, use of electronic notice, and conduct of meeting by teleconference. 

*Disclaimer:  This post discusses general legal issues, but does not constitute legal advice in any respect.   No reader should act or refrain from acting based on information contained herein without seeking the advice of counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.   Ryan K. Hew, Attorney At Law, LLLC expressly disclaims all liability in respect to any actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this post.