Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 39. LABOR · CHAPTER 2. THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP · Part 8. Blacklisting and Protection of Discharged Employees
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-803 (2026)

Blacklisting Prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 39
  3. CHAPTER 2
  4. Part 8
  5. 39-2-803 Blacklisting prohibited

TITLE 39. LABOR

CHAPTER 2. THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP

Part 8. Blacklisting and Protection of Discharged Employees

Blacklisting Prohibited

39-2-803. Blacklisting prohibited. If a company or corporation in this state authorizes or allows any of its agents to blacklist or if a person does blacklist any discharged employee or attempts by word or writing or any other means to prevent any discharged employee or any employee who may have voluntarily left the company's service from obtaining employment with another person, except as provided for in 39-2-802, the company, corporation, or person is liable in punitive damages to the employee prevented from obtaining employment, to be recovered in a civil action, and is also punishable as provided in 39-2-804.

History: En. Sec. 2, p. 258, L. 1891; amd. Sec. 3391, Pol. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 1756, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 3093, R.C.M. 1921; re-en. Sec. 3093, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 41-1310; amd. Sec. 7, Ch. 397, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 1482, Ch. 56, L. 2009.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: Brinkman v. State, 729 P.2d 1301 (Mont. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brinkman v. State, 729 P.2d 1301 (Mont. 1986). · cites it 5× “In Malquist, three union electricians and their union local sued several companies alleging the companies blacklisted the individuals and seeking punitive damages under § 39-2-803, MCA, entitled "Blacklisting prohibited.”
Malquist v. Foley, 714 P.2d 995 (Mont. 1986). · cites it 21× “If any company or corporation in this state authorizes or allows any of its agents to blacklist or any person does blacklist any discharged employee or attempts by word or writing or any other means whatever to prevent any discharged employee or any employee who may have…”
Bucy v. Edward Jones & Co., 445 P.3d 812 (Mont. 2019). · cites it 2× “, in the Montana Fourth Judicial District Court asserting claims for statutory blacklisting ( § 39-2-803, MCA ), statutory defamation ( § 27-1-801, MCA ), and common law tortious interference with his ***418 prospective business relationship with LPL.”
Loparex, LLC v. MPI Release Tech., LLC, 964 N.E.2d 806 (Ind. 2012). “§§ 44-117 , -119a; Mont.Code Ann. § 39-2-802 (2009). 10 .Some other state blacklisting statutes also follow this dual framework.”
Springer v. N. Eng'g & Consulting (D. Mont. 2023). · cites it 2× “§ 39-2-803. (Doc. 4 at 5-6.) Springer’s claim stems from his inability to maintain his phone number, which was originally assigned to NECI’s corporate account.”
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.