## Facts

- Manaiakalani Kalua was a degree-seeking University of Hawaiʻi (UH) student enrolled full-time during the academic year.
- In summer 1998, Kalua worked for UH 40 hours per week in a student-employee position open only to UH students.
- Kalua did not take summer classes, and his summer employment ended when the position concluded.
- Kalua filed for unemployment insurance benefits based on the summer employment.
- The Unemployment Insurance Division initially approved benefits, treating the services as covered “employment.”
- UH appealed, invoking HRS § 383-7(9)(B), which excludes from “employment” certain services performed by an enrolled student for the institution.
- An appeals officer first reversed the benefits award, then reopened the matter and issued a second decision awarding benefits on the ground that Kalua was not attending summer classes.
- The circuit court reversed the second agency decision and held Kalua ineligible under the statutory exclusion.
- The agency appealed to the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi.

## Issues

1. Whether HRS § 383-7(9)(B) excludes from unemployment “employment” services performed for a university by a student who remains a degree-seeking student but is not attending classes during the summer term when the services are performed.
2. Whether application of HRS § 383-7(9)(B) turns on a strict “enrolled and attending classes at the time of service” requirement or on whether the individual’s primary relationship to the institution is student rather than employee.
3. What weight, if any, should be given to the agency’s term-specific interpretation when it conflicts with statutory purpose and structure.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi affirmed the circuit court’s judgment and held Kalua was not entitled to unemployment benefits.
- The court adopted a “primary relationship” test for HRS § 383-7(9)(B): eligibility turns on whether the individual’s primary relationship with the institution is that of student or employee.
- Applying that test, the court concluded Kalua’s primary relationship with UH during summer employment was that of a student because the job was conditioned on, and incidental to, his continuing student status.
- The court rejected the agency’s narrow approach that treated absence of summer class attendance as dispositive and declined to defer to that interpretation.

## Legal Principles

- Under HRS § 383-7(9)(B), the student-services exclusion is applied by assessing whether the individual’s primary relationship to the educational institution is educational (student) or economic (employee).
- A term-by-term inquiry focused solely on whether the student is taking classes during the specific period of work is not controlling when the broader facts show continuing student status and student-conditioned employment.
- Although unemployment statutes are generally construed in light of their remedial aims, courts must still give effect to explicit statutory exclusions.
- Agency interpretations may be given weight, but courts need not accept an agency construction that is inconsistent with statutory text, structure, or legislative policy.

## Conclusion

The court held that a university student’s summer job limited to students fell within HRS § 383-7(9)(B)’s student-employment exclusion because the student’s primary relationship with the university remained that of a student, making the services outside covered “employment” for unemployment benefits purposes.


Univ. of Haw. v. Befitel, 100 P.3d 55 (Haw. 2004)