39-2-913. Preemption of common-law remedies. Except as provided in this part, no claim for discharge may arise from tort or express or implied contract.
Montana Code Annotated
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-913 (2026)
Preemption Of Common-Law Remedies
✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 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
Preemption Of Common-Law Remedies
History: En. Sec. 8, Ch. 641, L. 1987.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2021 · leading case: Meech v. Hillhaven West, Inc., 776 P.2d 488 (Mont. 1989).
Meech v. Hillhaven West, Inc., 776 P.2d 488 (Mont. 1989). “Section 39-2-913, MCA. The Act exempts from its provisions causes of action for discharge governed by other state or federal statutory procedures for contesting discharge disputes.”
Solle v. W. States Ins. Agency, Inc., 2000 MT 96, 999 P.2d 328. “" Section 39-2-913, MCA; Kulm v. Montana State UniversityBozeman (1997), 285 Mont.”
Basta v. Crago, Inc., 930 P.2d 78 (Mont. 1996). “Accordingly, we review the District Court's conclusion that Montana's Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act (the Act) bars Basta's breach of contract and breach of covenant claims under § 39-2-913, MCA (1991), because the parties did not enter into a written contract of…”
Kneeland v. Luzenac Am., Inc., 1998 MT 136, 961 P.2d 725. “The court had ruled that Kneeland’s claim was precluded by the Montana Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act (WDFEA), § 39-2-913, MCA. Kneeland argues that Luzenac’s failure to rehire him after it had acquired Montana Talc Company constitutes a separate and independent tort of…”
Mysse v. Martens, 926 P.2d 765 (Mont. 1996). “See § 39-2-913, MCA. However, the WDFEA does not limit a claimant’s right to plead an independent cause of action in conjunction with a claim under the Act.”
Beasley v. Semitool, Inc., 853 P.2d 84 (Mont. 1993). “The court focused on § 39-2-913, MCA, of the Wrongful Discharge Act, which reads: Preemption of common-law remedies.”
Dagel v. City of Great Falls, 819 P.2d 186 (Mont. 1991). “§ 39-2-913, MCA, Section 39-2-904, MCA, provides that a discharge is wrongful only if: (1) it was in retaliation for the employee's refusal to violate public policy or for reporting a violation of public policy; (2) the discharge was not for good cause and the employee had…”
Clark v. Eagle Sys., Inc., 927 P.2d 995 (Mont. 1996). “For those employees covered by the Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act, common law remedies are preempted pursuant to § 39-2-913, MCA, and pursuant to § 39-2-905(3), MCA, there is no right to recover damages for emotional distress.”
Farris v. Hutchinson, 838 P.2d 374 (Mont. 1992). “§ 39-2-913, MCA. Section 39-2-904, MCA, provides in part: A discharge is wrongful only if: .”
Great Falls Clinic LLP v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 2016 MT 245, 381 P.3d 550. “” Section 39-2-913, MCA; Solle v. Western States Ins.”
Kulm v. Montana State Univ.-Bozeman, 948 P.2d 243 (Mont. 1997). “[and] provides the exclusive remedy for a wrongful discharge from employment.” Section 39-2-902, MCA.”
Blehm v. St. John's Lutheran Hosp., Inc., 2010 MT 258, 246 P.3d 1024. “Section 39-2-913, MCA. Nevertheless, Blehm contends that she was terminated because of the positions she took on various issues such as employee management and evaluation, reporting of work place accidents, and executive salary.”
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.