Opinion ID: 2574374
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine

Text: The doctrine of exhaustion is not absolute. [E]xceptions to this doctrine exist, such as when pursuing the contractual remedy would be futile. Poe v. Hawaii Labor Relations Bd., 97 Hawai'i 528, 536, 40 P.3d 930, 938 (2002). Likewise, [a]n aggrieved party need not exhaust administrative remedies where no effective remedies exist. Hokama, 92 Hawai'i at 273, 990 P.2d at 1155. Furthermore, [a]s a general proposition... the contractual grievance procedure does not apply to tort actions. Id. (internal citations omitted). Finally, policy interests underlying the exhaustion doctrine may be outweighed by other interests. See Vaughn v. Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 289 Or. 73, 611 P.2d 281, 290 (1980) (We conclude that a worker claiming any type of unlawful employment discrimination ... is entitled to bring suit for injunctive relief pursuant to that statute, notwithstanding the availability of a remedy under the collective bargaining agreement. We reject defendant's argument that workers who have a remedy under a collective bargaining agreement are limited to that exclusive remedy. We hold that the state policy favoring exclusivity of collective bargaining agreement remedies does not foreclose the plaintiff's right to seek injunctive relief in this case.).