Employment Practices; Healthy Workplace Act; Abusive Conduct; Prohibition; Penalty; Private Cause of Action; Remedies; Rules
SB7 creates a new “Healthy Workplace Act” within chapter 378 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes to address workplace bullying, mobbing, and harassment that are not already covered by existing anti-discrimination laws. The bill defines “abusive conduct” as unwelcome, degrading, and dehumanizing conduct that is severe or pervasive enough to create an intimidating, hostile, or abusive work environment, while excluding petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents unless serious. It applies broadly to employers, employees, contracted employees, temporary employees, and independent contractors, and it makes it unlawful for any employer or employee to subject an employee to abusive conduct.
The bill would add new statutory duties for employers and representative employees, including responding promptly to complaints, conducting unbiased investigations, maintaining records, adopting and distributing a written healthy workplace policy by December 31, 2025, and training employees on that policy. It also prohibits pre-counsel mediation or arbitration of abusive-conduct complaints, bans nondisclosure and non-disparagement agreements tied to such complaints, and bars retaliation for opposing violations or exercising rights under the act. The measure creates a private right of action with a three-year limitations period, allows pseudonymous filings, authorizes compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and restorative relief, attorney’s fees for prevailing non-employers, and sets a civil penalty of up to $100 per violation for failure to adopt or distribute the required policy or provide training. It further directs the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations to adopt implementing rules and preserves collective bargaining rights where agreements provide superior protections.
The bill text reflects a strong pro-worker policy rationale, emphasizing the health harms of workplace abuse and the inadequacy of current remedies when conduct is not tied to a protected class. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided and the bill is listed as pending introduction, there is no documented legislative debate or voting sentiment in the available record. Based on the bill’s findings and structure, its overall tone is protective of employees and aimed at preventing abusive workplace behavior before it escalates into legal or health harms.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the prohibition and the compliance burden on employers. Employers may object to the bill’s broad definition of abusive conduct, the inclusion of independent contractors and other nontraditional workers, the requirement to implement complaint procedures and training, and the exposure to private lawsuits, damages, and attorney’s fees. Another likely area of dispute is the bill’s restrictions on arbitration, mediation, and confidentiality agreements, which could be viewed as limiting employer dispute-resolution practices. The bill attempts to address labor concerns by preserving collective bargaining agreements that provide superior rights, but it also overrides inferior contractual terms, which could still be controversial.