Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 39. LABOR · CHAPTER 2. THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP · Part 9. Wrongful Discharge From Employment
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-911 (2026)

Limitation Of Actions

✓ 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 9
  5. 39-2-911 Limitation of actions

TITLE 39. LABOR

CHAPTER 2. THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP

Part 9. Wrongful Discharge From Employment

Limitation Of Actions

39-2-911. Limitation of actions. (1) An action under this part must be filed within 1 year after the date of discharge.

(2) If an employer maintains written internal procedures, other than those specified in 39-2-912, under which an employee may appeal a discharge within the organizational structure of the employer, the employee shall first exhaust those procedures prior to filing an action under this part. The employee's failure to initiate or exhaust available internal procedures is a defense to an action brought under this part. If the employer's internal procedures are not completed within 90 days from the date the employee initiates the internal procedures, the employee may file an action under this part and for purposes of this subsection the employer's internal procedures are considered exhausted. The limitation period in subsection (1) is tolled until the procedures are exhausted. In no case may the provisions of the employer's internal procedures extend the limitation period in subsection (1) more than 120 days.

(3) If the employer maintains written internal procedures under which an employee may appeal a discharge within the organizational structure of the employer, the employer shall within 14 days of the date of the discharge notify the discharged employee in writing or electronically of the existence of the internal procedures. The timeframe for the employee to initiate the procedures, if any, begins to run from the date the employer sends or provides a copy of the internal procedures in writing or electronically. A copy of the procedures must be considered provided to the employee if the employer sends a copy of the procedures to the employee's last-known postal mailing address or electronic mailing address or the employee's attorney. If the employer fails to comply with this subsection, the discharged employee need not comply with subsection (2).

(4) If a plaintiff commences a civil action for wrongful discharge under this part, the plaintiff shall make service of process no later than 6 months after filing the complaint. If the plaintiff fails to make service of process within the 6-month period, the court, on motion or on its own initiative, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to a defendant unless that defendant has made an appearance in the civil action. If the plaintiff fails to make service of process within the 6-month period, the remaining 1-year period of limitations for a civil action under this part resumes regardless of whether the civil action is dismissed.

History: En. Sec. 6, Ch. 641, L. 1987; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 117, L. 2021.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2022 · leading case: Casiano v. Greenway Enter., Inc., 2002 MT 93 (Mont. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Casiano v. Greenway Enter., Inc., 2002 MT 93 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 27× “The court determined that Casiano’s action was not barred by § 39-2-911, MCA, as Greenway did not provide Casiano a written copy of its internal grievance procedures witMn seven days after Ms discharge in compliance with § 39-2-911(3), MCA.”
Eadus v. Wheatland Mem'l Hosp. & Nursing Home, 926 P.2d 752 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 72× “During a telephonic conference on the motion, the parties agreed that no genuine issue of material fact existed relating to § 39-2-911, MCA. The parties also agreed that the District Court properly could determine the summary judgment motion on the legal issue of whether §…”
Meech v. Hillhaven West, Inc., 776 P.2d 488 (Mont. 1989). · cites it 6× “Since Section 6 of the Act [§ 39-2-911, MCA] limits suits to one year from the date of discharge, the employee's loss is wholly speculative.”
Russell v. Masonic Home of Montana, Inc., 2006 MT 286 (Mont. 2006). · cites it 12× “Does § 39-2-911(2), MCA, violate article II, section 16 of the Montana Constitution, by not requiring Masonic to inform Russell that she must exhaust internal grievance procedures before instituting a wrongful discharge suit? FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶5 Russell worked for…”
Allison v. Jumping Horse Ranch, Inc., 843 P.2d 753 (Mont. 1992). · cites it 15× “Appellant contends that respondent failed to file his claim for wrongful discharge within the applicable statute of limitations under Section 39-2-911, MCA, and relies on our holding in Martin v.”
Shepherd v. State, 2021 MT 70 (Mont. 2021). · cites it 72× “¶6 DOC moved for summary judgment, arguing Shepherd’s claim under the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (WDEA) was time-barred under § 39-2-911, MCA. The District Court granted DOC’s summary judgment motion and dismissed Shepherd’s complaint with prejudice.”
Graham Cnty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States Ex Rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409 (2005). · cites it 2× “120 (2000) (catchall); Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-911 (1) (2003) (wrongful discharge); Neb.”
Haynes v. Shodair Child.'s Hosp., 2006 MT 128 (Mont. 2006). · cites it 12× “¶ 13 The section of the WDEA that is relevant to the case at bar is § 39-2-911(2), MCA, which provides, in relevant part: If an employer maintains written internal procedures, other than those specified in 39-2-912, under which an employee may appeal a discharge within the…”
Campanella v. Montana Dep't of Transp., 2007 MT 2 (Mont. 2007). · cites it 69× “¶9 The District Court then took up MDT’s next defense—that Campanella had filed his action beyond the one-year limitation period in § 39-2-911, MCA. It was undisputed that his WDEA action was not filed within one year after his July 16, 2003, discharge.”
Turner v. City of Dillon, 2020 MT 83 (Mont. 2020). · cites it 6× “” Section 39-2-911, MCA. The parties also agree that the City of Dillon is a municipal corporation falling within the definition of “political The provisions of this subsection do not apply to claims that may be asserted under Title 25, chapter 20, by third-party complaint,…”
Minnie v. City of Roundup, 849 P.2d 212 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 2× “The District Court concluded that the Minnies’ claim *431 against Roundup was barred by the statute of limitations in § 39-2-911, MCA. It also concluded that Roundup had the absolute power pursuant § 7-4-4105, MCA, to terminate the City Clerk.”
Redfern v. Montana Muffler, 896 P.2d 455 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 13× “” Section 39-2-911(1), MCA. The District Court determined that Redfern’s employment with Montana Muffler ended on October 24,1992, the date of his discharge.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-911(1) — 8 cases
Allison v. Jumping Horse Ranch, Inc., 843 P.2d 753 (Mont. 1992). “Appellant contends that respondent failed to file his claim for wrongful discharge within the applicable statute of limitations under Section 39-2-911, MCA, and relies on our holding in Martin v.”
Redfern v. Montana Muffler, 896 P.2d 455 (Mont. 1995). “” Section 39-2-911(1), MCA. The District Court determined that Redfern’s employment with Montana Muffler ended on October 24,1992, the date of his discharge.”
Walch v. Univ. of Montana, 861 P.2d 179 (Mont. 1993).
Campanella v. Montana Dep't of Transp., 2007 MT 2 (Mont. 2007). “¶9 The District Court then took up MDT’s next defense—that Campanella had filed his action beyond the one-year limitation period in § 39-2-911, MCA. It was undisputed that his WDEA action was not filed within one year after his July 16, 2003, discharge.”
Shepherd v. State, 2021 MT 70 (Mont. 2021). “¶6 DOC moved for summary judgment, arguing Shepherd’s claim under the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (WDEA) was time-barred under § 39-2-911, MCA. The District Court granted DOC’s summary judgment motion and dismissed Shepherd’s complaint with prejudice.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-911(2) — 10 cases
Casiano v. Greenway Enter., Inc., 2002 MT 93 (Mont. 2002). “The court determined that Casiano’s action was not barred by § 39-2-911, MCA, as Greenway did not provide Casiano a written copy of its internal grievance procedures witMn seven days after Ms discharge in compliance with § 39-2-911(3), MCA.”
Russell v. Masonic Home of Montana, Inc., 2006 MT 286 (Mont. 2006). “Does § 39-2-911(2), MCA, violate article II, section 16 of the Montana Constitution, by not requiring Masonic to inform Russell that she must exhaust internal grievance procedures before instituting a wrongful discharge suit? FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶5 Russell worked for…”
Shepherd v. State, 2021 MT 70 (Mont. 2021). “¶6 DOC moved for summary judgment, arguing Shepherd’s claim under the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (WDEA) was time-barred under § 39-2-911, MCA. The District Court granted DOC’s summary judgment motion and dismissed Shepherd’s complaint with prejudice.”
Eadus v. Wheatland Mem'l Hosp. & Nursing Home, 926 P.2d 752 (Mont. 1996). “During a telephonic conference on the motion, the parties agreed that no genuine issue of material fact existed relating to § 39-2-911, MCA. The parties also agreed that the District Court properly could determine the summary judgment motion on the legal issue of whether §…”
Haynes v. Shodair Child.'s Hosp., 2006 MT 128 (Mont. 2006). “¶ 13 The section of the WDEA that is relevant to the case at bar is § 39-2-911(2), MCA, which provides, in relevant part: If an employer maintains written internal procedures, other than those specified in 39-2-912, under which an employee may appeal a discharge within the…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-911(3) — 5 cases
Casiano v. Greenway Enter., Inc., 2002 MT 93 (Mont. 2002). “The court determined that Casiano’s action was not barred by § 39-2-911, MCA, as Greenway did not provide Casiano a written copy of its internal grievance procedures witMn seven days after Ms discharge in compliance with § 39-2-911(3), MCA.”
Eadus v. Wheatland Mem'l Hosp. & Nursing Home, 926 P.2d 752 (Mont. 1996). “During a telephonic conference on the motion, the parties agreed that no genuine issue of material fact existed relating to § 39-2-911, MCA. The parties also agreed that the District Court properly could determine the summary judgment motion on the legal issue of whether §…”
Russell v. Masonic Home of Montana, Inc., 2006 MT 286 (Mont. 2006). “Does § 39-2-911(2), MCA, violate article II, section 16 of the Montana Constitution, by not requiring Masonic to inform Russell that she must exhaust internal grievance procedures before instituting a wrongful discharge suit? FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶5 Russell worked for…”
Haynes v. Shodair Child.'s Hosp., 2006 MT 128 (Mont. 2006). “¶ 13 The section of the WDEA that is relevant to the case at bar is § 39-2-911(2), MCA, which provides, in relevant part: If an employer maintains written internal procedures, other than those specified in 39-2-912, under which an employee may appeal a discharge within the…”
Hoffman v. Town Pump, Inc., 843 P.2d 756 (Mont. 1992).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-911(l) — 1 case
Nanini v. Ninth Jud. Dist. Y (Mont. 1996).
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.