Opinion ID: 2509105
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Distinction between federal standard and Hawai'i standard

Text: This court also requires conduct to be severe and pervasive to constitute actionable sexual harassment. See Nelson v. Univ. of Hawai'i, 97 Hawai'i 376, 390, 38 P.3d 95, 109 (2001). However, in contrast to federal courts, this court's analysis of whether particular harassing conduct was severe and pervasive is separate and distinct from the remaining requirements of a plaintiff's claim: it is the harasser's conduct which must be severe or pervasive, `not its effect on the plaintiff or on the work environment.' Id. (quoting Hurley v. Atlantic City Police Dept., 174 F.3d 95, 115 (3d Cir.1999)). A finding that specific conduct was severe or pervasive does not require a finding that the conduct had the purpose or effect of either: (a) unreasonably interfering with the claimant's work performance, or (b) creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment[.] Nelson at 390, 38 P.3d at 109 (emphases omitted from original). Therefore, according to Nelson, we separate the severity and pervasiveness of the conduct from the effect that conduct had on the employee's work environment. As such, the relevant inquiry is not whether the conduct was so severe or pervasive as to create an abusive work environment, but rather is whether (1) the conduct was severe or pervasive [11] and (2) the conduct had the purpose or effect of affecting the claimant's employment (in the manner described supra ). The circuit court found only that genuine issues of material fact have not been presented to demonstrate that the initial touching incident was sufficiently severe to constitute sexual harassment. Thus, the circuit court appeared to rest its conclusion on the severity of the conduct, rather than on the effect the conduct had on Arquero's work environment or work performance. In so concluding, the circuit court utilized an unduly restrictive view of the phrase severe or pervasive. See Nelson, 97 Hawai'i at 390, 38 P.3d at 109 (Essentially, the `severe or pervasive' requirement reflects a general concern that an employer not be held liable for trivial conduct. (Citing Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998).)).