Hawaii common law allows such a cause of action for at-will employees, providing that “an employer may be held liable in tort where his discharge of an employee violates a clear mandate of public policy.” Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 65 Haw. 370, 380, 652 P.2d 625, 631 (1982). To determine if an employee termination raises a colorable Pamar claim, “courts should inquire whether the employer’s conduct contravenes the letter or purpose of a constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision or scheme.” Id. Because of the “somewhat vague meaning of the term ‘public policy,”’ a claim under Pamar further requires a violation of a “clearly defined policy.” Id. at 379, 652 P.2d at 630-31; see also Takaki v. Allied Machinery Corp., 87 Hawai'i 57, 63, 951 P.2d 507, 513 (Haw.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). A. The HWPA Provides that Employees May Bring
holding that the plain meaning of the uim policy language was clear and not contrary to public policy holding employees identified no clear public policy which their termination violated holding that federal law can provide source of state public policy for determining whether discharge of employee violated clear mandate of public policy holding that an employee has no right of action against an employer for wrongful discharge where no clear mandate of public policy is violated thereby holding that pamar only applies where  clear public policy is involved