Workers and supervisors are not considered employers and cannot be held personally liable for unlawful workplace discrimination practices, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case that drew attention from both business and civil rights organizations.

The court’s 4-1 ruling involved a discrimination lawsuit by Gerard Lales, who was fired from his sales job in 2002 at Wholesale Motors Co.

Lales sued the company and supervisor Gary Marxen Sr. The lawsuit alleged Lales was fired in retaliation for his complaints that the supervisor made derogatory remarks based on Lales’ French national origin.

The majority ruled that Lales could not pursue his claims against the supervisor, but can press his claims against the company.

The decision is considered significant because it dealt with personal liability for workers and supervisors who can face hardships in defending themselves if their employer doesn’t defend them.

Complainants alleging discrimination would not be able to get any recovery if the company goes bankrupt, and they cannot sue the supervisors, legal experts said.

Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald wrote the 76-page opinion.

In dissent, Associate Justice Simeon Acoba pointed out that another section of the state anti-discrimination law holds that any person, including an employee, is liable for aiding, inciting or coercing discriminatory practices.

Acoba said he would have allowed the claims against Marxen to proceed.

Lales’ lawyer, Daphne Barbee, called the ruling "bittersweet."

But she said she thought the "good outweighed the bad" with the court’s decision to permit the claims against Wholesale Motors.

Christopher Muzzi, Wholesale Motors’ attorney, said they were still reviewing the 76-page ruling as well as Acoba’s 60-page opinion.

Circuit Judge Randal Lee threw out the entire lawsuit, but in 2012 the state appeals court reinstated the claims against Marxen and the company.

The appeals court held that an employee as an agent of the employer can be held liable, but the high court held that the state law clearly limits liability to the "employer."

In ruling that Lales can proceed on the claims against the company, the high court held that a defense recognized by federal courts to Lales’ federal discrimination claims does not automatically require a dismissal of those counts.

Under the defense, employers can assert they acted to prevent and correct the discrimination and that the complainants failed to take advantage of the corrective action.

The court also said the federal defense doesn’t apply to state anti-discrimination laws because the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission’s rules hold employers strictly liable for discriminatory acts of their agents and supervisory employees.

The high court said there were enough disputed issues to allow Lales to proceed on his other claims of discrimination, retaliation and unlawful termination.

The case drew legal briefs by the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii and the Hawaii Automobile Dealers Association supporting Lee’s ruling dismissal of the lawsuit.

The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission submitted a brief arguing that the state law covers discrimination by supervisors.

Bill Hoshijo, the commission’s executive director, said they will be evaluating the ruling and how it will affect existing and future cases.

He said workers can’t be named in complaints on the basis that they are employees, but said the ruling gives "clear guidance" on liability on the part of employers and the "inapplicability" of the federal defense.

Hoshijo said workers who aid or abet discrimination can be held liable, but the complainant cannot assert the employees are liable "by virtue of their position."

The high court did not address Lee’s ruling that Lales’ suit was "frivolous" and that he must pay nearly $160,000 in legal fees and costs to Wholesale Motors and two others named in the suit.

Some observers say the issue is reserved for the judge once the case is sent back to Circuit Court.

Barbee said the ruling on the fees should be set aside because the high court’s ruling that the case can proceed against the company shows the suit wasn’t "frivolous."