Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-303 (2026)

Deception As To Character Of Employment, Conditions Of Work, Or Existence Of Labor Dispute Prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TITLE 39. LABOR

CHAPTER 2. THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP

Part 3. General Prohibitions on Employers

Deception As To Character Of Employment, Conditions Of Work, Or Existence Of Labor Dispute Prohibited

39-2-303. Deception as to character of employment, conditions of work, or existence of labor dispute prohibited. (1) A person or an entity doing business in this state may not induce, influence, persuade, or engage workers to change from one place to another in this state through or by means of deception, misrepresentation, or false advertising concerning the kind or character of the work, the sanitary or other conditions of employment, or as to the existence of a strike or other trouble pending between the employer and the employees at the time of or immediately prior to the engagement. Failure to state in any advertisement, proposal, or contract for the employment of workers that there is a strike, lockout, or other labor trouble at the place of the proposed employment when in fact a strike, lockout, or other trouble actually exists at that place is considered a false advertisement and misrepresentation for the purpose of this section.

(2) A worker influenced, induced, persuaded, or engaged through or by means of any of the things prohibited by subsection (1) has a right of action for recovery of all damages that the worker sustained in consequence of the deception, misrepresentation, or false advertising used to induce the worker to change the worker's place of employment against anyone directly or indirectly procuring the change, and in addition, the worker shall recover reasonable attorney fees to be fixed by the court and taxed as costs in any judgment recovered.

History: En. 41-118 by Sec. 2, Ch. 513, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 41-118; amd. Sec. 1460, Ch. 56, L. 2009.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1986–2013 · leading case: Landa v. Assurance Co. of Am., 2013 MT 217 (Mont. 2013).
Landa v. Assurance Co. of Am., 2013 MT 217 (Mont. 2013). · cites it 7× “”This claim is predicated on an alleged violation of §39-2-303, MCA. Section 39-2-303, MCA prohibits a person or entity doing business in Montana from inducing, influencing, persuading, or engaging workers to change jobs ‘by means of deception, misrepresentation, or false…”
Rowland v. Klies, 726 P.2d 310 (Mont. 1986). · cites it 3× “We have summarized *367 the claims as: (1) a claim for a violation of the employer-employee relationship; (2) a claim for a violation of Section 39-2-303, MCA, which deals with employer deception and misrepresentation; (3) a claim for negligent misrepresentation; (4) a claim for…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.