NAKAYAMA, Justice.
Plaintiff-appellant Harvey J. Ross filed an action against defendant-appellee Stouffer Hotel Company (Hawai'i) Ltd. (Stouffer)1 in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit, State of Hawai'i, after Stouffer discharged him from his position as a massage therapist at the Waiohai Resort (the Resort), on the island of Kaua’i, because of his marital status. At the time he was discharged, Ross was married to Viviana Treffry, who was the principal massage therapist at the Resort. Stouffer discharged Ross pursuant to its policy prohibiting persons related by blood or marriage from working in the same department (the no-relatives policy). The primary claim of Ross’s complaint (and later his amended complaint) was that Stouffer’s enforcement of its no-relatives policy violated Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 378-2 (1985).2 Following a series of procedural [456]*456skirmishes and two prior appeals to this court, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Stouffer on six of the seven claims included in Ross’s amended complaint and entered final judgment on those claims pursuant to Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) 54(b) (1991). Ross filed a timely appeal. For the following reasons, the summary judgment is affirmed in part and vacated in part.
I. BACKGROUND
In August 1986, Amfac Hotels and Resorts, Inc. (Amfac Hotels) hired Ross as a massage therapist at the Resort, which it then owned and operated. Amfac Hotels also hired Treffry, with whom Ross had been living for almost a year, as the principal massage therapist. Both worked in the Resort’s Po’ipu Beach Fitness Center.
In August 1987, Ross and Treffry married. A couple of weeks later, Stouffer acquired the Resort from Amfac Hotels and became Ross’s and Treffry’s employer.
At the end of September 1987, Ross and Treffry became aware of Stouffer’s no-relatives policy. In early October 1987, Ross and Treffry met with Perry and Furtado. At that meeting, the no-relatives policy was discussed, and Perry and Furtado agreed to talk to Stouffer’s corporate headquarters about whether the policy would be enforced. Stouffer decided to enforce the policy.
On October 16,1987, Perry sent a memo to Ross and Treffry, which stated in part:
In our meeting on October 9, 1987 we discussed the memo you had received relating to the employment of immediate family in the same department. We have taken your comments into consideration, discussed the situation and our decision is to enforce consistent application of our policy. This means that one of you will need to either apply for a transfer to another department or resign.
Because we understand that your specialty as massage therapists may make a transition to another position more complicated[,] we will allow an additional 60 days from today for you to decide which avenue will offer the best opportunities. An application for transfer will be based on qualifications for the position. In the event that you are unable to decide which one of you will transfer or resign, management will be obligated to terminate the employment of the less senior employee[;] in this case this would be Harvey.
Ross received the memo on October 20, 1987. Because neither he nor Treffry had transferred or resigned by the December 15, 1987 deadline, Ross was discharged.
On March 14, 1988, Ross filed a complaint with the enforcement division of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR), asserting that he had “been discriminated against on the basis of [his] marital status.” He received a notice of right-to-sue from the DLIR about two weeks later. Ross filed a complaint in the circuit court on May 17, 1988, asserting claims for: wrongful discharge in violation of HRS § 378-2 (count I); discharge in violation of public policy (count II); intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress (counts III and IV); and punitive damages (count V). Ross’s complaint was later amended to include a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (count VI) and a claim for breach of implied contract (count VII). The case was eventually admitted to the Court Annexed Arbitration Program, where it was pending when the motions for summary judgment that are the subject of this appeal were made.
Following the addition of the federal statutory claim (count VI), the case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Hawai’i. The federal district court dismissed the federal claim and remanded the case to the circuit court for adjudication of the remaining state claims. Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai'i) Ltd,., No. 89-00049 (D.Haw. April 21, 1989) (order granting judgment on pleadings on federal cause of action and remanding to circuit court).
In July 1989, following the remand from the federal district court, the circuit court [457]*457filed an order granting Stouffer’s motion for summary judgment on “each remaining count” of Ross’s amended complaint. Ross appealed to this court. On September 21, 1990, we dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because, although the order granting summary judgment indicated that it applied to “each remaining count,” it failed to expressly dismiss several of the counts in Ross’s amended complaint. We therefore ruled that it was not an appealable final order.
On October 29, 1990, the circuit court entered an amended order granting summary judgment in favor of Stouffer on all remaining claims. Ross again appealed to this court. On August 29, 1991, we issued an opinion addressing only count I, Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Company (Hawai'i) Ltd., Inc., 72 Haw. 350, 816 P.2d 302, reconsideration denied, 72 Haw. 616, 841 P.2d 1074 (1991) (Ross I). Ross I held that, unless it fit into one of the exceptions in HRS § 378-3 (1985),3 Stouffer’s discharge of Ross pursuant to its no-relatives policy violated HRS § 378-2, because it discriminated against Ross because of his marital status. 72 Haw. at 355, 816 P.2d at 304. Finding the record incomplete as to whether any of the exceptions in HRS § 378-3 applied, this court vacated the judgment and remanded the ease to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. Id.
Following remand, Stouffer moved for partial summary judgment on counts II through VII, primarily arguing that the claims included in those counts were either barred or factually unsupported. On June 4, 1992, the circuit court entered an order granting Stouffer’s motion as to counts II through VI and denying the motion as to count VII (breach of implied contract).4
About a month later, Stouffer moved for summary judgment on count I, the HRS § 378-2 claim, and to strike certain damages claims. Stouffer primarily argued that Ross was barred from bringing count I because he did not timely file his complaint with the DLIR. Stouffer also argued that Ross’s claims for compensatory and punitive damages under count I should be stricken because neither were available remedies under HRS § 378-5 (1985).
On August 27, 1992, the circuit court filed an order granting the motion and, finding that there was no just reason for delay, entered final judgment in Stouffer’s favor on counts I through VI, pursuant to HRCP 54(b). (The breach of implied contract claim, count VII, remains.) Ross filed a timely appeal.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Review of an award of summary judgment is under the same standard applied by the circuit court and is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. S. Utsunomiya Enterprises, Inc. v. Moomuku Country Club, 75 Haw. 480, 497, 866 P.2d 951, 961, reconsideration denied, 76 Hawai'i 247, 871 P.2d 795 (1994).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Count I
1. Reconsideration of Ross I
Stouffer initially asks us to reconsider and overrule the majority’s decision in Ross I [458]*458because, it argues, that decision was based on incorrect facts and analysis.
Stouffer reiterates an argument it previously made in its motion to reconsider Ross I. It points out that the majority’s opinion in Ross I incorrectly stated that Ross and Tref-fry were married in August 1986, over a year before Stouffer decided to enforce its no-relatives policy. 72 Haw. at 351, 816 P.2d at 303. In fact, the two were married in August 1987, approximately two months before Stouffer informed Ross and Treffry of its decision to enforce the policy. Based on this mistake, the majority stated:
[invocation of the policy a year after [Ross and Treffry] had entered into a marital relationship left them with a Hobson’s choice of one of them either giving up his or her employment, or their seeking a divorce, and continuing to live together and being employed in their chosen occupation.
Id. at 354, 816 P.2d at 304. Although regrettable, the error affected neither the analysis nor the result of Ross I, as this court indicated when we denied Stouffer’s motion for reconsideration. 72 Haw. 616, 841 P.2d 1074. In Ross I, the majority concluded that, by enforcing its no-relatives policy, Stouffer violated HRS § 378-2(1), because it discharged Ross “because of ... [his] marital status.” 72 Haw. at 355, 816 P.2d at 304. Although the majority mistakenly noted that a year’s lapse between Ross’s and Treffry’s marriage and Stouffer’s decision to enforce the no-relatives policy made their “Hobson’s choice” especially painful, that point was immaterial to the majority’s analysis and holding. The fact that Stouffer discharged Ross because of his marital status — regardless of when he achieved that status — was the sole determinative .factor in Ross I.
Notwithstanding the minor factual error in Ross I, we stand by its holding that, “as a matter of law, the policy ... of terminating persons who marry other persons working in the same department violates HRS § 378-2 unless the termination falls within one of the exceptions in HRS § 378-3.” Id. Although Stouffer and the dissent continue to argue that that interpretation is at odds with what they perceive to be legislative intent, we think the legislature’s failure to overrule Ross I, despite having well over two years to do so, vindicates the majority’s construction of HRS § 378-2. See State v. Dannenberg, 74 Haw. 75, 83, 837 P.2d 776, 780 (‘Vhere the legislature fails to act in response to our statutory interpretation, the consequence is that the statutory interpretation of the court must be considered to have the tacit approval of the legislature and the effect of legislation.”), reconsideration denied, — Haw. —, 843 P.2d 144 (1992); accord Gorospe v. Matsui, 72 Haw. 377, 381, 819 P.2d 80, 82 (1991); In re Pacific Marine & Supply Co., 55 Haw. 572, 579-80, 524 P.2d 890, 896 (1974); Honolulu Star Bulletin v. Burns, 50 Haw. 603, 607, 446 P.2d 171, 173 (1968).
In making its charge that the holding in Ross I amounts to “judicial legislation,” the dissent remains wedded to the notion that the definition of marital status contained in HRS § 378-1 (1985) — “the state of being married or being single” — unambiguously permits employers to discriminate against married persons so long as the discrimination is based on the “identity and occupation of a person’s spouse,” dissent at 3, and not solely on the fact that he or she is married, regardless of to whom.
That extremely restrictive reading of the statute ignores the simple fact of life that when a person marries, it is always to a particular person with a particular “identity.” One does not “marry” in some generic sense, but marries a specific person. Thus, the “identity” of one’s spouse (and all of his or her attributes, including his or her occupation) is implicitly subsumed within the definition of “being married.” The two cannot be separated. It makes no sense, therefore, to conclude, as the dissent does, that an employer who discriminates based on the “identity and occupation” of a person’s spouse is not also discriminating against that person because he or she is married. An employer can’t do one without the other. Stated otherwise, a no-spouse policy, by definition, applies only to the class of married persons. Consequently, when an employer discharges an employee pursuant to such a policy, it necessarily discriminates “because of ... [the employee’s] marital statusf.]” HRS [459]*459§ 378-2. The facts of this case make the point.
Stouffer does not dispute that under its no-relatives policy, Ross would not have been discharged had he not married Treffry, but had instead chosen to remain single and continue living with her out of wedlock. The policy was triggered only because Ross chose to marry Treffry. The event that caused Ross to be discharged, therefore, was the change in his marital status, that is, the change from his “state of ... being single” (and merely cohabiting with Treffry), HRS § 378-1, to his “state of being married” (and continuing to live with Treffry). Id. Granted, the “identity and occupation” of Ross’s spouse was also a contributing cause of his discharge. That, however, does not diminish the fact that, but for Ross’s marital status, he would not have been fired. Unquestionably, then, Stouffer discharged Ross “because of ... [his] marital status[.]” HRS § 378-2. The dissent fails to acknowledge that disposi-tive fact.5
The dissent overstates the effect of the holding in Ross I. It does not completely “outlaw no-relatives policies.” Dissent at 469, 879 P.2d at 1052. Instead, it simply holds that, “as a matter of law, the policy of terminating persons who marry other persons working in the same department violates HRS § 378-2 unless the termination falls within one of the exceptions in HRS § 378-3.” 72 Haw. at 355, 816 P.2d at 304 (emphasis added). Such policies, therefore, can be legitimate, but the employer has the burden of proving that they are. That is consistent with the overall purpose and design of Part I of HRS Chapter 378, which, as noted, defines prohibited discriminatory conduct in very broad terms and places the burden on the employer to justify its practices.
The dissent also overstates our reliance on the legislature’s failure to overrule Ross I. Dissent at 470-474, 879 P.2d at 1053-1057. We stand by the holding in Ross I because, as the above discussion indicates, we believe it was based on a correct construction of the statute. The fact that the legislature has not acted to amend the statute, despite having at least two opportunities to do so in the last three years, see id. at 473 n. 8, 879 P.2d at 1056 is surely some indication, although admittedly not conclusive proof, that it agrees with the Ross I majority’s construction of HRS § 378-2. See Dannenberg, 74 Haw. at 83, 837 P.2d at 780.
In sum, contrary to the dissent’s charge that we are imposing our view of appropriate public policy in disregard of the legislature’s intent, we remain convinced that Stouffer’s no-relatives policy as applied to Ross violates the plain language and purpose of HRS § 378-2, unless the termination falls within one of the exceptions in HRS § 378-3. Thus, regardless of whether we believe that our construction of the statute amounts to good or bad public policy, we are constrained to reaffirm the holding of Ross I. To do otherwise — that is, to adopt the dissent’s construction of the statute — would amount to nothing more than judicial legislation.
2. Ross timely filed his administrative complaint with the DLIR
HRS § 378^4(c) (1985), which was in effect at the time Ross filed his administrative com[460]*460plaint with the DLIR, provided that “[n]o complaint shall be filed after the expiration of ninety days after the date upon which the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice occurred.”6 The circuit court concluded that Ross was barred from asserting a claim under HRS § 378-2 because he failed to timely file his complaint with the DLIR.
Stouffer argues that the circuit court correctly concluded that the ninety-day period for Ross to file his complaint with the DLIR commenced on October 20,1987. It primarily contends that, in an action for unlawful discharge under HRS § 378-2(1), the “alleged unlawful discriminatory practice occur[s]” — that is, the time for filing a complaint with the DLIR begins to run — when an employee is given clear notice that his or her employment will be terminated. In the present case, Stouffer contends, that occurred on October 20, 1987, when Ross received Perry’s memo informing him that Stouffer intended to enforce its no-relatives policy and that Ross would be discharged unless either he or Treffry transferred to another department or resigned. So interpreted, Ross failed to comply with HRS § 378-4(c), because his March 14,1988 DLIR complaint would have been filed fifty-six days too late.
Ross, on the other hand, argues that the operative date is December 15,1987, the date he was actually dismissed from employment. He asserts that his claim is based on his discharge, not on Stouffer’s decision to enforce its no-relatives policy, even if that decision made his eventual discharge likely. He therefore contends that the “alleged unlawful discriminatory practice” did not “occur” until Stouffer actually terminated his employment on December 15, 1987. Assuming the validity of Ross’s argument, his DLIR complaint was timely because it was filed exactly ninety days after he was actually discharged.
We note initially that the underlying premise of Stouffer’s argument and the circuit court’s ruling is that the timely filing of an administrative complaint with the DLIR was a precondition to a civil suit under HRS § 378-2. We agree with that premise. HRS § 378-5(e)(l) & (2) (1985), which were in effect when Ross was discharged and when he filed his administrative and circuit court complaints, respectively empowered the DLIR to “issue a right to sue upon written request of the complainant” and required a “complainant” to bring his or her civil action within ninety days of receiving a notice of right to sue. The logical implication of the legislature’s decision to authorize the DLIR to issue a right to sue is that it was a precondition to bringing a civil action for violation of HRS § 378-2; if it were not, the power to issue a right to sue would have been meaningless. Because only a “complainant” could request a right to sue, and because HRS § 378-4(c) prohibited the filing of a complaint more than ninety days after the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice occurred, it necessarily follows that the timely filing of an administrative complaint was a precondition to a civil suit.
Reduced to its essence, the legal question before us is whether, in an action for unlawful discharge in violation of HRS § 378-2(1), the “alleged discriminatory practice occur[s],” HRS § 378-4(c), when an employee receives notice that he or she will be discharged or when he or she is actually discharged. The circuit court apparently concluded that notification triggers HRS § 378-4(c)’s statutory filing period. The construction of a statute is a question of law which this court reviews de novo. Richardson v. City and County of Honolulu, 76 Hawai'i 46, 63, 868 P.2d 1193, 1210, reconsideration denied, 76 Hawai'i 247, 871 P.2d 795 (1994).
Stouffer urges us to construe HRS § 378-4(c) in accord with Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 101 S.Ct. 498, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980), and Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U.S. 6, 102 S.Ct. 28, 70 L.Ed.2d 6 (1981) (per curiam), and a line of federal and state employment discrimination cases essentially holding that the time period for [461]*461filing an administrative complaint for unlawful discharge commences on the date that notice to terminate is given, not on the date of actual termination. We decline to do so. Instead, we construe HRS § 378-4(c) to mean that, in an action in which an employee claims that he or she was discharged in violation of HRS § 378-2(1), the ninety-day filing period commences when the employee is actually discharged.
Our decision is compelled by the plain language of HRS §§ 378-2 and 378-4(c). When Ross was discharged and when he filed his complaint with the DLIR, HRS § 378-2(1) made it “an unlawful discriminatory practice ... [f]or any employer to ... discharge [an employee] from employment ... because of ... marital status[.]” HRS § 378-4(c), in turn, provided that “[n]o complaint shall be filed after the expiration of ninety days after the date upon which the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice occurred.” Laws in pari materia, or upon the same subject matter, are interpreted with reference to each other. Richardson, 76 Hawai'i at 55, 868 P.2d at 1202. Read in conjunction with HRS § 378-2(1), then, HRS § 378-4(c) prohibited any complaint from being filed more than “ninety days after the date upon which the alleged [‘discharge from employment ... because of ... marital status’] occurred.” (Emphasis added.) “Discharge” and “occurred” are the operative words.
In interpreting a statute, we give the operative words their common meaning, unless there is something in the statute requiring a different interpretation. Schmidt v. Board of Directors of Ass’n. of Apartment Owners of The Marco Polo Apartments, 73 Haw. 526, 582, 836 P.2d 479, 482 (1992); State v. Garcia, 9 Haw.App. 325, 328, 839 P.2d 530, 532 (1992). When used in the employment context, “discharge” means the termination of one’s employment. Black’s Law Dictionary, for instance, defines “discharge” to mean “[t]o dismiss from employment; to terminate the employment of a person.” Black’s Law Dictionary 463 (6th ed. 1990). Nothing in Part I of HRS Chapter 378 indicates that the legislature intended to use “discharge” in a way other than its ordinary sense. Similarly, nothing in Part I of HRS Chapter 378 indicates that the legislature intended to give “occurred” a meaning other than its commonly understood one. See The Random House College Dictionary 920 (rev. ed. 1979) (defining “occur” to mean, inter alia, “to happen; come to pass.”).
HRS § 378-4(c) uses “occur” in the past tense. Thus, by its express terms, HRS § 378-4(c) provides that the ninety-day filing period begins to run “after the ... alleged unlawful discriminatory practice occurred.” (Emphasis added.) When the “alleged unlawful discriminatory practice” is the discharge of an employee, that means that the filing period commences after he or she has been discharged, that is, after his or her employment has terminated.
It is a cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that, where the terms of a statute are plain, unambiguous and explicit, we are not at liberty to look beyond that language for a different meaning. Kaapu v. Aloha Tower Dev. Corp., 74 Haw. 365, 388, 846 P.2d 882, 888-89 (1993). Instead, our sole duty is to give effect to the statute’s plain and obvious meaning. AIG Haw. Ins. Co. v. Estate of Caraang, 74 Haw. 620, 633-34, 851 P.2d 321, 328 (1993). Accordingly, we hold that, in an action alleging unlawful discharge in violation of HRS § 378-2, the time for filing an administrative complaint begins to run on the date that the employee is actually discharged, that is, on the date that his or her employment terminates.
Departure from the literal construction of the statute would be justified only if such a result were absurd and unjust and obviously inconsistent with the purposes and policies of Part I of HRS Chapter 378. See Richardson, 76 Hawai'i at 60, 868 P.2d at 1207; State v. Magoon, 75 Haw. 164, 178, 858 P.2d 712, 719-20, reconsideration denied, — Haw. —, 861 P.2d 735 (1993). However, adherence to the plain language of HRS § 378-4(c) produces an eminently sensible and just result that is consistent with the purposes of the Hawai'i employment discrimination laws.
A bright line rule that the filing period commences on the date of actual discharge fairly accommodates the interests of both [462]*462employees and employers. On the one hand, such a rule favors adjudication of the merits of HRS § 378-2 claims. We think it fair to say that many, if not most, employees become aware of and begin to pursue legal remedies for unlawful discharge only after they have actually been dismissed. Were the time for filing an administrative complaint to begin before that, i.e., upon notification that the employer intended to discharge an employee, it is likely that many employees would have little or, perhaps, no time left to invoke the protections conferred by Part I of HRS Chapter 378 following an unlawful discharge.7 We think a construction of HRS § 378-4(e) favoring adjudication on the merits is more consistent with the remedial purposes of Part I of HRS Chapter 378 than one likely to bar potentially meritorious claims. As we said in Puchert v. Agsalud, 67 Haw. 25, 677 P.2d 449 (1984), appeal dismissed, 472 U.S. 1001, 105 S.Ct. 2693, 86 L.Ed.2d 710 (1985), in construing HRS § 378-33(b) (1985), which establishes the time periods within which an employee must file an administrative complaint for wrongful discharge or suspension in violation of HRS § 378-32(2):
The construction of this section allowing a hearing on the merits and providing the employee with the avenue by which he may be afforded a remedy for the violation of his rights would be more consonant with the legislative enactment of remedial social legislation for workers than would a technical reading which would deny relief without an opportunity to be heard.
Id. at 36, 677 P.2d at 457-58.
On the other hand, our reading of HRS § 378-4(c) does not mean that employers will be forced to defend against large numbers of “stale” claims. See Wiegand v. Allstate Ins. Cos., 68 Haw. 117, 122, 706 P.2d 16, 20 (1985). The period between notice of and actual discharge is ordinarily relatively short. We think it unlikely that many claims will become stale in the interim. In addition, because an employer would know — and, presumably, control — when it notified an employee of his or her impending discharge, nothing would prevent it from taking steps to protect against the problems normally associated with stale claims.
Finally, a rule that the filing period commences on the date of actual discharge, like any bright line rule, has the virtue of simplicity. Because it removes any doubt about when the filing period begins, it has the beneficent effect of avoiding the protracted and expensive litigation over the precise date and adequacy of an employer’s notice of termination that would inevitably result if we concluded that the date of notice triggered the filing period.
Having construed the meaning of HRS § 378-4(c), we turn to its application in the present case. There is no dispute about the material facts. Ross and Stouffer agree that Ross was discharged on December 15, 1987. There is also no question that the unlawful discriminatory practice alleged in Ross’s DLIR and circuit court complaints was his discharge. Therefore, pursuant to HRS § 378-4(c), Ross had ninety days — from December 15, 1987 through March 14, 1988 — to file a complaint with the DLIR. Because he filed his complaint on March 14, 1988, he complied with HRS § 378-4(c).
We therefore hold that Stouffer was not entitled to summary judgment on count I on the ground that Ross’s DLIR complaint was not timely filed.8
[463]*4633. Available Remedies
In addition to various equitable remedies, Ross’s amended complaint seeks recovery of compensatory and punitive damages under count I.9
At the time Ross was discharged and when he filed his amended complaint in circuit court, HRS § 378-5(f) provided that
if the court finds that [an employer] has engaged in or is engaging in any unlawful discriminatory practice as defined in this part, the court may enjoin the [employer] from engaging in such unlawful discriminatory practice and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement, hiring, or upgrading of employees, with or without backpay ..., or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate. Backpay liability shall not accrue from a date more than two years prior to the filing of the complaint with the [DLIR],
HRS § 378-5(f) (1985) (emphasis added). The statute plainly limits available relief to appropriate equitable remedies; it does not authorize the recovery of either compensatory or punitive damages, both of which are traditional legal remedies. See United States v. Burke, — U.S. —, —, 112 S.Ct. 1867, 1873, 119 L.Ed.2d 34, 45 (1992) (essentially identical language under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g), (prior to its amendment in 1991) “does not allow awards for compensatory or punitive damages; instead it limits available remedies to backpay,- injunctions, and other equitable relief.”); see also Sparrow v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 949 F.2d 434, 437 (D.C.Cir.1991) (under Title VII backpay is equitable remedy akin to restitution), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 3009, 120 L.Ed.2d 883 (1992).
Ross argues that even if HRS § 378-5(f) provides for only equitable relief, he is still entitled to compensatory and punitive damages under HRS § 368-17(a) (Supp. 1992). He claims that HRS § 368-17(a), which became effective on July 1,1989 (after Ross filed his amended complaint), allows for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages in civil actions brought pursuant to Part I of HRS Chapter 378 and should be applied retrospectively.10 We disagree. Assuming, arguendo, that HRS § 368-17(a) permits a court to award compensatory and punitive damages in civil actions brought under Part I of HRS Chapter 378, it does not operate retrospectively. HRS § 1-3 (1985) provides that “[n]o law has any retrospective operation, unless otherwise expressed or obviously intended.” We find nothing in the statutory language or legislative history of HRS Chapter 368 (or anywhere else) indicating that the legislature expressly or obviously intended HRS § 368-17(a) to apply retrospectively. It therefore has prospective effect only. See State v. Nakata, 76 Haw. 360, 374, 878 P.2d 699, 713 (1994).
Accordingly, we hold that if Ross prevails on his marital discrimination claim (count I) following remand, he is entitled to appropriate equitable relief, including backpay, as provided in HRS § 378 — 5(f), but he cannot recover any compensatory damages or punitive damages on that claim.
B. Count II
In Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 65 Haw. 370, 652 P.2d 625 (1982), we recog[464]*464nized an exception to the judicially created “employment at-will” doctrine, holding that “an employer may be held liable in tort where his discharge of an employee violates a clear mandate of public policy.” 65 Haw. at 380, 652 P.2d at 631. Ross asserted a Parnar claim, alleging that his discharge violated the public policy of Hawaii against employment discrimination based on marital status and, more broadly, against discouraging marital relationships. The circuit court dismissed the claim, apparently on the ground that an independent Pamar claim could not be maintained where the public policy upon which the claim is based is embodied in a statute, i.e., Part I of HRS Chapter 378, that itself provides a sufficient remedy for its violation.
Several decisions of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii have reached the same conclusion on sound reasoning. For instance, in Lapinad v. Pacific Oldsmobile-GMC, Inc., 679 F.Supp. 991 (D.Haw.1988), the court concluded that a Pamar claim was
intended to apply to a “narrow class of cases” where the wrongful discharge action is seen as necessary to effectuate the public policy at stake. If, however, the statutory or regulatory provisions which evidence the public policy themselves provide a remedy for the wrongful discharge, provision of a further remedy under the public policy exception is unnecessary. If the legislature has considered the effect of wrongful discharge on the policies which they are promoting, provision by the courts of a further remedy goes beyond what the legislature itself thought was necessary to effectuate that public policy.
679 F.Supp. at 993. Accord Hew-Len v. F.W. Woolworth, 737 F.Supp. 1104, 1107-08 (D.Haw.1990); Lui v. Intercontinental Hotels Corp. (Hawaii), 634 F.Supp. 684, 688 (D.Haw.1986).
We agree with the reasoning of those decisions. By making the discharge of an employee “because of ... [his or her] marital status” unlawful, HRS § 378-2(1), and providing a remedial scheme for that discriminatory employment practice, the legislature itself has provided the means for enforcing the public policy that Ross seeks to vindicate through his Pamar claim. In other words, even before Pamar was decided, the legislature had already done what a Pamar claim is designed to do, that is, modify the employment at-will doctrine to further an important public policy. Absent a clear expression of legislative intent to the contrary,11 we think it is both unnecessary and unwise to permit a judicially created cause of action, which is designed to promote a specific public policy in a “narrow class of cases,” Parnar, 65 Haw. at 379, 652 P.2d at 631, to be maintained where the policy sought to be vindicated is already embodied in a statute providing its own remedy for its violation. The fact that the relief available under Ross’s HRS § 378-2 claim is limited to equitable relief, see supra section III.A.3, does not change our conclusion. While the addition of compensatory and punitive damages might enhance the enforcement of the policy against discrimination based on marital status, we do not believe that the available statutory remedies, which are quite broad in their own right, are insufficient to compensate Ross for his employment discrimination claim. Cf. Smith v. Chaney Brooks Realty, Inc., 10 Haw.App. 250, 258-59, 865 P.2d 170, 174 (1994) (because HRS Chapter 388 did not provide sufficient remedy for an employee discharged for asserting rights under its provisions, common law remedy for wrongful discharge was not barred).
Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Stouffer on count II of Ross’s amended complaint.
C. Counts III and IV
Ross appeals the dismissal of his claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
[465]*4651. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress is permitted only if the alleged tortfeasor’s acts were “unreasonable.” Calleon v. Miyagi, 76 Hawai'i 310, 321 n. 7, 876 P.2d 1278, 1289 (1994), as amended, 76 Hawai'i 463, 879 P.2d 558 (1994); Chedester v. Stecker, 64 Haw. 464, 467, 643 P.2d 532, 535 (1982); Marshall v. University of Hawaii, 9 Haw.App. 21, 38, 821 P.2d 937, 947 (1991). An act is “unreasonable” if it is “ “without just cause or excuse and beyond all bounds of decency[.]’ ” Chedester, 64 Haw. at 468, 643 P.2d at 535 (quoting Fraser v. Blue Cross Animal Hosp., 39 Haw. 370, 375 (1952)). In other words, the act complained of must be “outrageous,” as that term is employed in the Restatement (Second) of Tarts § 46 (1965).12 Id.
“The question whether the actions of the alleged tortfeasor are unreasonable or outrageous is for the court in the first instance, although where reasonable persons may differ on that question it should be left to the jury.” Wong v. Panis, 7 Haw.App. 414, 421, 772 P.2d 695, 700 (1989) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 comment h).
Ross argues that Stouffer acted unreasonably by discharging him for a discriminatory reason unrelated to his work performance and by refusing to consider taking actions short of discharging or transferring him. At a minimum, Ross argues, there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the unreasonableness of Stouffer’s actions, and that issue, therefore, should have been left for the jury to resolve. We disagree.
Ross points to no evidence in the record before us indicating that the manner in which Stouffer discharged Ross, or its motivation for doing so, was unreasonable. He has adduced no evidence that Stouffer believed that the enforcement of its no-relatives policy was unlawful or that Stouffer or any of its employees behaved “beyond all bounds of decency” in discharging him.' See Chedester, 64 Haw. at 468, 643 P.2d at 535. Ross himself testified in his deposition that he believed that Perry “acted to the best of whatever he believed his conscience] was at the time,” and admitted that the meetings leading up to Stouffer’s decision to enforce the policy were polite. Indeed, the undisputed evidence that Stouffer offered to permit Ross to arrange an in-house transfer and gave him an extended period of time to make a decision about whether to transfer or resign suggests that, under the circumstances, Stouffer acted decently.
Because Ross has failed to adduce any evidence that Stouffer acted unreasonably in the course of discharging him, we hold, on the record before us, that his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was properly dismissed on summary judgment.
2. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
Ross contends that the circuit court erred in dismissing his claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, arguing that recovery is allowed in the absence of a physically manifested injury. On that point, Ross is correct; we have held that recovery is permitted without a showing of physically manifested harm. Campbell v. Animal Quarantine Station, 63 Haw. 557, 560, 632 P.2d 1066, 1068 (1981); Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156, 472 P.2d 509 (1970). We have also held, however, that recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress by one not physically injured is generally permitted only when there is “some physical injury to property or a person” resulting from the [466]*466defendant’s conduct. Chedester, 64 Haw. at 468, 643 P.2d at 535.13
We adhere to that general rule in the context of this case. Ross has presented no evidence of any physical injury to himself or anyone else. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court properly entered summary judgment in favor of Stouffer on Ross’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. See Calleon, 76 Hawai'i at 320, 876 P.2d at 1288.
D.Count V
The circuit court dismissed count V of Ross’s amended complaint seeking punitive damages. Ross acknowledges that a claim for punitive damages is not an independent tort, but is purely incidental to a separate cause of action. See Kang v. Harrington, 59 Haw. 652, 660, 587 P.2d 285, 291 (1978). In light of our holdings above affirming the dismissal of counts II, III, IV, and VI of Ross’s amended complaint, as well as our holding that punitive damages are not recoverable on Ross’s HRS § 378-2 claim (count I), the only remaining claim that might be the basis for the recovery of punitive damages is count VII, breach of implied contract. In order to recover punitive damages based on a breach of a contract, one must show that “the contract [was] breached in such a wilful, wanton or reckless manner as to result in a tortious injury.” Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Investment Co., 74 Haw. 85, 139 n. 23, 839 P.2d 10, 37 n. 23 (citing Quedding v. Arisumi Brothers, Inc., 66 Haw. 335, 661 P.2d 706 (1983); Dold v. Outrigger Hotel, 54 Haw. 18, 22, 501 P.2d 368, 372 (1972)), reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650, 843 P.2d 144 (1992).
It is not clear to us whether Ross asserts a separate claim for tortious breach of contract, in addition to his claim for breach of implied contract. Assuming that he does, we find no evidence in the record even suggesting that, if Stouffer did breach the alleged implied contract, the breach was done in such a “wilful, wanton or reckless manner” that punitive damages would be justified. Id.; Masaki v. General Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1, 16-17, 780 P.2d 566, 575, reconsideration denied, 71 Haw. 664, 833 P.2d 899 (1989).
Accordingly, we hold that Ross cannot recover punitive damages for tortious breach of contract and that the circuit court properly dismissed count V of Ross’s amended complaint.
E.Count VI
As noted above, because Ross has not assigned the dismissal of count VI as a point of error on appeal and has not addressed the claim in his briefs, we hold that he has waived any argument that count VI was improperly dismissed. HRAP 28(b)(4) and 28(b)(7). We therefore affirm the summary judgment in Stouffer’s favor on count VI.
F.Rule 7(F) of the HawaVi Arbitration Rules
Ross finally argues that Stouffer’s motion for partial summary judgment, in which it sought summary judgment on counts II through VII, was improper under Hawai'i Arbitration Rules (HAR) 7(F) (1991) because it did not seek to dispose of all claims (i.e., Stouffer had yet to move for summary judgment on count I). HAR 7(F) provides that “[a]ll dispositive motions shall be made to the Circuit Court as required by law or rule notwithstanding the fact that a case is under the'[Court Annexed Arbitration] Program.”
Nothing in HAR 7(F) explicitly requires a dispositive motion to include every claim, and Ross offers no authority to support his argument. While we share Ross’s concern about “piecemeal” litigation, especially with respect to cases assigned to the Court Annexed Arbitration Program, which is intended “to provide a prompt and equitable .resolution of certain civil matters[,]” HAR 2(A) (1991), we hold that Stouffer’s motion for partial summary judgment, which sought dismissal of six of Ross’s seven claims, did not violate HAR 7(F).
[467]*467IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the summary judgment entered on August 27, 1992 as to count I of Ross’s amended complaint (the HRS § 378-2 claim), affirm the summary judgment as to counts II through VI, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.