In Nakamoto v. Kawauchi (May 8, 2018), the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled:

1. The exclusive remedy provision under Hawaii’s workers’ compensation law does not bar claims for defamation and false light, thus allowing employees to sue employers for those claims; and
2. A licensed private investigator owes a duty of care to the subjects of investigations to conduct an investigation honestly, truthfully, with fair dealing and to accurately report findings. A breach of this duty could be the basis of a negligent investigation claim against the private investigator.

In this case, the County of Hawaii terminated the employment of two individuals following an investigation of alleged employee misconduct.  A local newspaper published an article about the terminations and included quotes from some county officials about the terminations.  The terminated employees then sued the county and the county officials for defamation and false light.  They also sued a third party investigation company that conducted an investigation of the alleged misconduct by alleging that the investigation had been conducted negligently.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ claims for defamation and false light were barred by the exclusive remedy provision under Hawaii’s workers’ compensation law, which generally provides that separate claims against an employer are prohibited because employees are covered by workers’ compensation laws for work-related injuries.  In addition, the investigation company argued that it did not owe a “duty of care” to the employees because there was no special relationship between an investigator and the subjects of an investigation.

In finding that the terminated employees could pursue claims for defamation and false light against the county and county officials, the court concluded that the exclusive remedy provision for injuries incurred in the course of employment did not extend to injuries to a person’s reputation.  Specifically, the court explained that the exclusive remedy provision applied only to a “personal injury,” which includes both physical and mental injuries.  In the court’s eyes, an injury to a person’s reputation was not a personal injury because it was neither a physical or mental injury.  

Additionally, the court ruled that based on the licensing requirements for investigators, a third party investigator did indeed owe duty of care to the subjects of an investigation.  The court noted that under the regulations governing licensing for private investigators (HAR § 16-97-46), an investigator’s license may be revoked upon the misrepresentation of a material fact on any investigative, surveillance, or security report.  In addition, Hawaii’s private investigator licensing statute and regulations (HRS § 463-6 and HAR § 16-97-46) require investigators to possess a history of honesty, truthfulness, integrity, and fair dealing.