Hawaii 2024 Regular Session

Hawaii Senate Bill SB3298

Introduced
1/24/24  
Refer
1/29/24  
Introduced
1/24/24  

Caption

Relating To State Employees.

Impact

By implementing this clarification, SB3298 has implications for Chapter 662 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes regarding the defense of state employees. If enacted, it will formally define and outline the circumstances under which the State must defend its employees in civil lawsuits. The law restricts the scenarios in which the attorney general can refuse to provide defense, which may foster a supportive work environment for professionals in state employment by reducing their apprehension about personal repercussions arising from their job duties. This move can be seen as reinforcing the notion that employees acting within their defined roles should not bear the brunt of litigation arising from their professional responsibilities.

Summary

SB3298 addresses the legal defense obligations of the State of Hawaii concerning its professionally licensed or certified employees. The bill clarifies that the Attorney General is mandated to defend these employees in civil actions provided they were operating within the scope of their employment and were not grossly negligent or engaged in wanton acts. This legislative measure aims to enhance the protections available to state employees, ensuring they have legal representation when acting in their official capacity, thereby potentially encouraging them to perform their duties without the fear of personal liability.

Contention

One of the notable points of contention regarding SB3298 lies in the threshold for legal defense, particularly concerning what constitutes 'gross negligence' or 'wanton' acts. Critics of the bill may argue that there needs to be a clearer distinction or additional guidelines to ensure that legitimate cases of misconduct by state employees do not escape accountability. As the Attorney General is given significant discretion in such matters, concerns may arise about the potential for misuse or misinterpretation of what scenarios warrant a defense, particularly in high-stakes civil proceedings. This ambiguity could lead to legal battles not only for employees but also for the state, if a refusal to defend is deemed unfounded.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

HI SB1490

Relating To State Employees.

HI SB1490

Relating To State Employees.

HI HB2699

Relating To The Defense Of State Employees.

HI SB2520

Relating To The Defense Of State Employees.

HI SB336

Relating To The Defense Of State Employees.

HI HB166

Relating To The Defense Of State Employees.

HI SB779

Relating To The Defense Of State Employees.

HI HB886

Relating To Professionally Licensed Or Certified Government Employees.

HI SB1040

Relating To Professionally Licensed Or Certified Government Employees.

HI HB0994

STATE EMPLOYEE INDEMNIFICATION

Similar Bills

HI SB336

Relating To The Defense Of State Employees.

HI SB2520

Relating To The Defense Of State Employees.

HI HB166

Relating To The Defense Of State Employees.

HI SB779

Relating To The Defense Of State Employees.

CA SB339

Engineers, land surveyors, and geologists and geophysicists: nondisclosure agreements: reporting.

CA AB715

Educational equity: discrimination.

AZ SB1418

Religious; political beliefs; adverse actions

AZ SB1589

Attorneys; court-appointed professionals; juries