holding that Hawaii law on intentional infliction of emotional distress follows the Restatement (Second) of Torts
How later courts described this case
- holding that Hawaii law on intentional infliction of emotional distress follows the Restatement (Second) of Torts
- implying that the McDonnell Douglas framework would apply at the summary judgment stage of a § 378-2(a)(7) claim
- holding that a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is distinct from a claim for emotional distress damages under the employment discrimination statute
- holding that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to compel discovery in employment discrimination case
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Concurring Opinion by
LEVINSON, J.
I concur in the results reached in Parts IV and V of the majority opinion, although I do not necessarily subscribe to the opinion’s reasoning. I join in Parts VI, VII, and VIII of the majority opinion.