RELATING TO PETITIONS TO TEMPORARILY RESTRAIN AND ENJOIN HARASSMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE.
SB2567 creates a two-year pilot project to expand Hawaii’s harassment restraining-order law so that a public employer may petition a district court for a temporary restraining order and injunction on behalf of a public servant who is being harassed in connection with their job. The bill is aimed at public employees and officials facing threats, stalking, harassment, or violence, and it expressly includes executive-branch employees, legislators, judicial officers and employees, local government employees, and certain federal judges with ties to Hawaii. It also preserves the existing ability of an individual victim to seek relief on their own behalf.
The bill amends section 604-10.5, Hawaii Revised Statutes, to define “public employer,” “public servant,” and “public servant of the State,” and to authorize district courts to issue ex parte temporary restraining orders and longer injunctions when probable cause or clear and convincing evidence supports harassment. It adds procedures for anonymous filings, sealing records, service, notice to law enforcement, attorney’s fees, and misdemeanor penalties for knowing or intentional violations, including escalating mandatory minimum jail terms for repeat violations. The measure also directs the Department of the Attorney General to create a system for retaining private counsel for state public employers in these cases, while barring the Attorney General’s office from directly representing the parties in these actions, and it states that the authorization is discretionary and does not create a duty or private right of action. The act takes effect July 1, 2026, and sunsets June 30, 2028, after which the prior version of the statute is restored.
SB2567 temporarily expands Hawaii’s harassment injunction statute by adding a new mechanism for public employers to seek protective orders for employees targeted because of their public service. It changes the scope of HRS §604-10.5, creates new definitions and procedures specific to employment-related harassment, and establishes a pilot framework that affects district court practice, public agencies, and the handling of harassment cases involving government workers. It also creates a limited, funded pathway for state employers to use private attorneys in these matters and imposes criminal penalties for violations of resulting orders.
The bill appears to have had broadly favorable support throughout the legislative process. It passed Senate Labor and Technology unanimously, advanced through Senate Ways and Means unanimously, and passed Senate Judiciary with one dissenting vote. It then cleared both conference committees unanimously and was enacted as Act 111. The vote pattern suggests general agreement on the need to address harassment of public employees, especially public officials and judges, while still refining the bill through amendments.
The main policy tension in the bill is between expanding protection for public servants and avoiding overreach or conflicts in representation. The Legislature specifically noted concerns that the Attorney General’s office could face conflicts of interest if it represented public employees directly, which led to the private-counsel mechanism and the prohibition on Attorney General representation. Another point of caution is that the new authority is discretionary rather than mandatory, and the bill expressly disclaims any private right of action against the State or public employers for choosing whether to seek relief. The inclusion of anonymous filings, sealing provisions, and criminal penalties also reflects a balance between protecting targets of harassment and preserving due process and constitutional activity.