Plaintiff relies to make these arguments on appeal are in the record, but she did not make these claims explicitly to the district court. Had she done so, Defendant might have introduced evidence to dispute the equitable claims. Because Plaintiff failed to raise these claims below, we do not reach them now. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976). 3. Plaintiffs argument that her claims for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress are subject to a two-year statute of limitations also fails. To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking to raise claims for intentional or negligent infliction of emotion distress for the first time on appeal, her claims are waived. Id.; see also Hac v. Univ. of Haw., 102 Hawai’i 92, 73 P.3d 46, 58-59 (2008) (<HOLDING>). To the extent that Plaintiff is arguing that
holding emotional distress is a distinct claim from wrongful death recognizing validity of cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress holding that intentional infliction of emotional distress is a personal injury tort holding that act did not bar intentional infliction of emotional distress claim holding that a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is distinct from a claim for emotional distress damages under the employment discrimination statute