Elec. Co., Inc., 80 Hawai'i 120, 123 n. 2, 906 P.2d 127, 130 n. 2 (1995) (affirming denial of workers [sic] compensation stress claim because injury arose out of worker’s suspension for misconduct, but noting that “[i]f an employer’s actions constitute unlawful discrimination ..., an injured employee may invoke rights in other forums. See, e.g., HRS §§ 378-2 and 378-32”). Id. at 18, 936. P.2d at 654 (emphasis added). Thus, the supreme court has recognized that an employee may bring an action against his or her employer for intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by discrimination in violation of HRS §§ 378-2, and that such an action is not barred by the exclusivity provision of HRS § 386-5. Cf. Hough v. Pacific Ins. Co., 83 Hawai'i 457, 465, 927 P.2d 858, 866 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Takaki asserted in his opposition memorandum
holding that under the common law a claim for personal injuries died with the victim holding that the plaintiff was not barred by hrs  3865 from seeking common law tort remedies against his insurer for injuries caused by the insurers  outrageous and intentional denial of medical benefits and disability payments  because such injuries were not  work injuries  within the scope of hrs chapter 386 holding that injuries covered by the act are not limited to external traumatic injuries holding that although claimant was aware of lung and hearing injuries caused by exposure to noise and pollution at work as early as 1970 his 1984 claim was not barred by the statute of limitations because his injuries resulted from ongoing exposure when he filed the claim holding hospital employees testimony regarding victims previous injuries was inadmissible under the common scheme or plan exception because there was no clear and convincing evidence defendant inflicted the injuries