of section 378-2, her argument fails. Notwithstanding the remedies sought, claims under section 378-2 are governed by a 180-day administrative filing requirement. Haw.Rev.Stat. § 368-ll(c)(1); Furukawa v. Honolulu Zoological Soc’y, 85 Hawai'i 7, 936 P.2d 643, 654 (1997). AFFIRMED. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. FISHER, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part: I respectfully dissent from part 2 of the court’s decision. I would vacate summary judgment on Horita’s Title VII claim because she has demonstrated a triable issue of equitable tolling or equitable estoppel that would make her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge timely. See Bolker v. Comm’r, 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Assuming the employer’s decision to terminate
recognizing discretion to consider argument raised for first time on appeal if issue is matter of law and either does not depend on the factual record or the pertinent record has been fully developed holding that court will not consider issue raised for first time on appeal holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal holding we may consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal when the issue presented is purely one of law and  depends on the factual record developed below recognizing the general rule that a court of appeals will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal