HRS § 302A-624
As § 661-1 contains a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for claims against the State that are founded upon a statute or founded upon a contract with the State, the circuit court did not err when it allowed plaintiff substitute teachers to pursue breach-of-contract claims against the State where the teachers were in a contractual relationship with the State, sought money that they claimed were due them for the work they performed under the contract, and alleged that under the express and implied terms of their agreement, they were entitled to pay in accordance with subsection (e). 122 H. 150 (App.), 223 P.3d 215. Notwithstanding subsequent changes to the class II classification designation, the 1996 legislature's deliberate choice was to tie a substitute teacher's pay to that of a regular full-time certified teacher based on an appropriate four years of college and other department of education (DOE) requirements; thus, subsection (e) continued to govern the pay terms of the parties' agreement and this section continued to tie the substitute teachers' pay to that of full-time teachers who possessed an appropriate four years of college education and other DOE requirements until June 30, 2005.122 Haw. 150 (App.),223 P.3d 215. The State's sovereign immunity from plaintiff substitute teachers' claims against the State was waived under § 661-1 where subsection (e) thereof stated that the per diem salary for substitute teachers "shall be" based on the formula that it described, and subsection (e), as a pay-mandating statute, provided an alternative basis for invoking the court's jurisdiction under the "founded upon any statute" language in § 661-1.122 Haw. 150 (App.),223 P.3d 215. Where the issue of mutual assent as to a per diem rate of pay other than required pursuant to subsection (e) was not material because (1) it was undisputed that an essential and material part of the parties' agreement was that the substitute teachers' pay was "subject to applicable state laws"; and (2) the parties could not contract to violate a law determining a rate of pay, whether it be more or less than directed by the legislature, the circuit court properly granted plaintiff teachers summary judgment on issue that State violated its contractual obligations to pay the per diem rate during the applicable period.122 Haw. 150 (App.),223 P.3d 215.