ALLISEN C. MATHERN, Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant, vs. EDWARD D. JONES & COMPANY, CORVEL CORPORATION, AND DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondents/Appellees-Appellees.

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant ALLISEN C. MATHERN:
     Ted H.S. Hong

Attorneys for Respondent/Appellee-Appellee EDWARD D. JONES & COMPANY:
     Judy M. Iriye of Littler Mendelson, P.C.

Attorneys for Respondent/Appellee-Appellee DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Li-Ann Yamashiro and Jung Yun Ha, Deputy Attorneys General

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge Kevin A.K. Souza due to a vacancy, filed 05/05/26.

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/28/26.

COURT:    Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Souza assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

This case involves whether Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR) delays in processing an unlawful termination claim violated the claimant’s due process rights.

Allisen Mathern worked as a branch office administrator for Edward D. Jones & Company (Edward Jones) in Pāhoa.  When impending lava flow closed the Pāhoa office in late 2014, Mathern temporarily moved to Edward Jones’ Hilo location.  There, she suffered work-related injuries.

Mathern took medical leave.  Seven months later, Edward Jones terminated her, citing exhaustion of her leave benefits and the “firm’s business needs.”

Mathern filed an unlawful termination claim against Edward Jones.  The DLIR hearing officer concluded that Mathern was not solely terminated based on her disability and was terminated for lack of work, so her termination was not unlawful.  The DLIR director adopted the hearing officer’s decision.

On appeal, Mathern alleged that her due process rights were violated by unreasonable agency delays totaling six years.  First, a three-year delay between her complaint filing and the DLIR hearing officer’s hearing on her claim.  Second, another three-year delay between the hearing officer’s decision and the DLIR director’s adoption of that decision.

The circuit court concluded there was no due process violation.  The ICA affirmed.  On cert, Mathern again alleges violation of her due process rights.