Skip to main content

Quel v. Board of Trustees, Employees' Retirement System of Hawai'i.

Haw.February 6, 2020No. SCWC-16-0000355
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the lower court's denial of Quel's service-connected disability retirement benefits, holding that the administrative rule's definition of 'occupational hazard' was correct but that the ERS Board clearly erred in finding her permanent incapacity did not result from an occupational hazard. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

What This Ruling Means

**Quel v. Board of Trustees, Employees' Retirement System of Hawai'i (2020)** This case involved a dispute between an employee named Quel and Hawaii's public employee retirement system board. While the specific details of what triggered the legal conflict are not available from the court records, the case was filed as an employment law matter in February 2020. Unfortunately, the court's final decision and reasoning in this case are not available in the provided information. The outcome of the dispute remains unclear, and no damages or monetary awards were reported in the available records. **What This Means for Workers:** Without knowing the specific issues raised or how the court ruled, it's difficult to draw clear lessons from this case. However, the fact that this case was brought against a public retirement system board suggests it may have involved important questions about employee benefits, retirement rights, or workplace protections for public employees in Hawaii. Workers should be aware that employment disputes with government agencies and retirement systems can be complex legal matters. If facing similar issues with retirement benefits or employment rights, employees should consider seeking guidance from employment attorneys or relevant worker advocacy organizations to understand their options and protections.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.