Opinion ID: 2585163
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Elements of a Claim

Text: Based on the foregoing, we take this opportunity to clarify the elements of a HESH claim set forth in Steinberg and hold that, in order to establish a HESH claim, the claimant must show that: (1) he or she was subjected to sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct or visual forms of harassment of a sexual nature; (2) the conduct was unwelcome; (3) the conduct was severe or pervasive; (4) 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; (5) the claimant actually perceived the conduct as having such purpose or effect; and (6) the claimant's perception was objectively reasonable to a person of the claimant's gender in the same position as the claimant. In addition, with regard to the third element of the claim, we observe that the required showing of severity or seriousness varies inversely with the pervasiveness or frequency of the conduct. For example, a single severe act can be enough to establish a claim, and multiple incidents, each of which may not be severe when considered individually, can be enough to establish a claim when evaluated collectively. Moreover, we emphasize that, to establish the last two elements of a HESH claim, it is not necessary for the claimant to prove that he or she has suffered tangible physical or psychological harm: the claimant's perception is the harm as long as the perception is objectively reasonable. See Harris, supra . Finally, we emphasize that, in evaluating a HESH claim for purposes of dismissal, summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law, or in instructing juries, courts must look at the record as a whole and at the totality of the circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. Steinberg, 88 Hawai`i at 18, 960 P.2d at 1226 (citing HAR § 12-46-109(b) [12] ). The clarified standard set forth above is consistent with HAR § 12-46-109(a) and the HCRC's interpretation of the law, see discussion supra, which should be given due deference. See Hyatt Corp. v. Honolulu Liquor Comm'n, 69 Haw. 238, 242-43, 738 P.2d 1205, 1208 ([It] is a well established rule of statutory construction that, where an administrative agency is charged with the responsibility of carrying out the mandate of a statute which contains words of broad and indefinite meaning, courts accord persuasive weight to administrative construction and follow the same, unless the construction is palpably erroneous. (Brackets in original.)), reconsideration denied, 69 Haw. 238, 738 P.2d 1205 (1987). This clarified standard is not only consistent with federal law, but, at the same time, avoids the confusing language contained in some of the federal cases. [13]