Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-912 (2026)

Exemptions

✓ 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 9. Wrongful Discharge From Employment

Exemptions

39-2-912. Exemptions. (1) This part does not apply to a discharge:

(a) that is subject to any other state or federal statute that provides a procedure or remedy for contesting the dispute. The statutes include those that prohibit discharge for filing complaints, charges, or claims with administrative bodies or that prohibit unlawful discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, as defined in 1-1-201, age, disability, creed, religion, political belief, color, marital status, and other similar grounds.

(b) of an employee covered by a written collective bargaining agreement or a written contract of employment for a specific term.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a contract for a specific term may contain a probationary period as provided for in 39-2-910 and may contain an automatic renewal clause that automatically renews the contract of employment for one or more successive terms.

History: En. Sec. 7, Ch. 641, L. 1987; amd. Sec. 30, Ch. 472, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 117, L. 2021; amd. Sec. 15, Ch. 685, L. 2023.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 43 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Tonack v. Montana Bank of Billings, 854 P.2d 326 (Mont. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tonack v. Montana Bank of Billings, 854 P.2d 326 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 32× “Section 39-2-912, MCA, states: This part does not apply to a discharge: (1) that is subject to any other state or federal statute that provides a procedure or remedy for contesting the dispute.”

Basta v. Crago, Inc., 930 P.2d 78 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 52× “Section 39-2-912, MCA (1991). I disagree.”

Burchett v. MasTec North Am., Inc., 2004 MT 177 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 14× “Thus, while a Montana district court generally has subject matter jurisdiction over wrongful discharge claims pursuant to the WDEA, it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a wrongful discharge claim where other state or federal legislation provides a procedure for…”

Winslow v. Montana Rail Link, Inc., 2000 MT 292 (Mont. 2000). · cites it 16× “Except as provided in § 39-2-912, MCA, the WDEA is the exclusive remedy for wrongful discharge.”

Solle v. W. States Ins. Agency, Inc., 2000 MT 96 (Mont. 2000). · cites it 10× “" Section 39-2-912(2), MCA. ¶ 14 Solle does not dispute that her employment with WSIA was covered by a written contract of employment for a specific term.”

Wurl v. Polson Sch. Dist. No. 23, 2006 MT 8 (Mont. 2006). · cites it 4× “The School District first asserted that Wurl could not bring an action under the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (WDEA), §§ 39-2-901 *285 through -915, MCA, because her complaint clearly alleged that her employment was covered by either a written contract for a specific…”

Meech v. Hillhaven West, Inc., 776 P.2d 488 (Mont. 1989). · cites it 4× “Sections 39-2-912 to 39-2-913, MCA. The Act repeals Montana statutes which formerly granted to both employees and employers the right to terminate the employment relationship for fault on the part of the other party.”

Farris v. Hutchinson, 838 P.2d 374 (Mont. 1992). · cites it 6× “(2) of an employee covered by a written collective bargaining agreement or a written contract of employment for a specific term. (Emphasis added.”

Vettel-Becker v. Deaconess Med. Ctr. of Billings, Inc., 2008 MT 51 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 6× “Those exceptions, found at § 39-2-912, MCA, include discharges that are subject to state or federal statutes prohibiting unlawful discrimination and discharge in retaliation for reporting unlawful discrimination.”

Associated Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Ruff, 424 P.3d 571 (Mont. 2018). · cites it 2× “While *586 §§ 39-2-403 and -409, MCA, generally impose a duty on an employee to protect and prioritize the employer's interest over any employee interest in a similar business, that general duty does not preclude, limit, or impair the right and ability of an employer and…”

Schultz v. Stillwater Mining Co., 920 P.2d 486 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 19× “We find dispositive the issue of whether Schultz’s claim is exempt from Montana’s Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act under § 39-2-912, MCA, because he also filed a complaint with the United States Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration to recover damages…”

Brown v. Yellowstone Club Operations, LLC, 2011 MT 155 (Mont. 2011). · cites it 15× “¶9 The issue in this case is whether an employment contract for a specified term (here, three years) that also allows the employer to terminate the employee at will, for no cause, is a contract for a “specific term” under the exception provided in § 39-2-912, MCA. Neither the…”

Show all 43 citing cases →

— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-912(1) — 5 cases

Burchett v. MasTec North Am., Inc., 2004 MT 177 (Mont. 2004). “Thus, while a Montana district court generally has subject matter jurisdiction over wrongful discharge claims pursuant to the WDEA, it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a wrongful discharge claim where other state or federal legislation provides a procedure for…”

Kershaw v. Montana Dep't of Transp., 2011 MT 170 (Mont. 2011).

Campanella v. Montana Dep't of Transp., 2007 MT 2 (Mont. 2007).

Harrington v. Energy West Inc., 2015 MT 233 (Mont. 2015).

Norval Elec. Coop v. Lawson (Mont. 2023).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-912(1)(b) — 1 case

Pope v. DOC, 2026 MT 94 (Mont. 2026).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-912(2) — 16 cases

Basta v. Crago, Inc., 930 P.2d 78 (Mont. 1996). “Section 39-2-912, MCA (1991). I disagree.”

Winslow v. Montana Rail Link, Inc., 2000 MT 292 (Mont. 2000). “Except as provided in § 39-2-912, MCA, the WDEA is the exclusive remedy for wrongful discharge.”

Solle v. W. States Ins. Agency, Inc., 2000 MT 96 (Mont. 2000). “" Section 39-2-912(2), MCA. ¶ 14 Solle does not dispute that her employment with WSIA was covered by a written contract of employment for a specific term.”

Wurl v. Polson Sch. Dist. No. 23, 2006 MT 8 (Mont. 2006). “The School District first asserted that Wurl could not bring an action under the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (WDEA), §§ 39-2-901 *285 through -915, MCA, because her complaint clearly alleged that her employment was covered by either a written contract for a specific…”

Associated Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Ruff, 424 P.3d 571 (Mont. 2018). “While *586 §§ 39-2-403 and -409, MCA, generally impose a duty on an employee to protect and prioritize the employer's interest over any employee interest in a similar business, that general duty does not preclude, limit, or impair the right and ability of an employer and…”

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.