49-2-301. Retaliation prohibited. It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for a person, educational institution, financial institution, or governmental entity or agency to discharge, expel, blacklist, or otherwise discriminate against an individual because the individual has opposed any practices forbidden under this chapter or because the individual has filed a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation or proceeding under this chapter.
Montana Code Annotated
Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-301 (2026)
Retaliation Prohibited
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MT-LEGleg.mt.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
TITLE 49. HUMAN RIGHTS
CHAPTER 2. ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION
Part 3. Prohibited Discriminatory Practices
Retaliation Prohibited
History: Ap.p. Sec. 2, Ch. 283, L. 1974; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 121, L. 1975; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 524, L. 1975; amd. Sec. 7, Ch. 38, L. 1977; Sec. 64-306, R.C.M. 1947; Ap.p. Sec. 9, Ch. 283, L. 1974; amd. Sec. 10, Ch. 524, L. 1975; Sec. 64-312, R.C.M. 1947; R.C.M. 1947, 64-306(9), 64-312(2); amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 177, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 1799, Ch. 56, L. 2009.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Mahan v. Farmers Union Cent. Exch., Inc., 768 P.2d 850 (Mont. 1989).
Mahan v. Farmers Union Cent. Exch., Inc., 768 P.2d 850 (Mont. 1989). “Section 49-2-301, MCA. Plaintiff testified that he was retaliated against by his employer in that the employer refused to give him a letter of reference because he had sued the company, and that he was not included in the company and employee functions after he had sued the…”
Maffit v. City of Helena, 2021 MT 14 (Mont. 2021). “The District Court concluded that § 49-2-301, MCA, does not provide a cause of action to non-human entities and dismissed MILP as a plaintiff for lack of standing.”
Norval Elec. Coop v. Lawson, 2022 MT 245 (Mont. 2022). “¶32 Considering the totality of the circumstances here, we conclude the District Court did not err in affirming the Hearing Officer’s determination that Lawson was exposed to a hostile and abusive work environment at NorVal, and was subjected to sexual harassment.”
Hafner v. Montana Dep't of Labor & Indus., 929 P.2d 233 (Mont. 1996). “Section 49-2-301, MCA. His characterization of the issue presented assumes that he was terminated for having sued Conoco.”
Fandrich v. Capital Ford Lincoln Mercury, 901 P.2d 112 (Mont. 1995). “The District Court concluded that if Ryan’s allegations were true, Capital violated § 49-2-301, MCA, of Montana’s Human Rights Act, and that the Act’s provisions were, therefore, his exclusive remedy.”
Rolison v. Bozeman Deaconess Health Servs., Inc., 2005 MT 95 (Mont. 2005). “See § 49-2-301, MCA. ¶16 On appeal, both parties advance the burden-shifting test for summary judgment motions in disparate treatment discrimination cases set forth in Heiat v.”
Parker-Bigback v. St. Labre Sch., 2000 MT 210 (Mont. 2000). “Although Bigback did allege in her complaint that she was alternatively terminated in violation of § 49-2-301, MCA, for assisting Jeanie Hanic with her complaint, that claim has been abandoned by Bigback on appeal and has neither been briefed nor argued.”
Lay v. State Dep't of Military Affairs, Disaster & Emergency Servs. Div., 2015 MT 158 (Mont. 2015). “Section 49-2-301, MCA. If an employee complains of “acts constituting an alleged violation” of the MHRA, the MHRA provides the “exclusive remedy,” and the employee must seek redress in conformance with the procedures set forth in the MHRA.”
Fayant v. ALK-Abello, Inc. (D. Mont. 2025). “The Montana Human Rights Act prohibits both retaliation, Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-301 , and discrimination in employment, Mont.”
Rhoten v. Rocking J. Ranch LLC (D. Mont. 2022). “) Count 7 alleges “Employment Discrimination – Retaliation” under Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-301 . (Id. at 26–27.”
Rhoten v. Rocking J. Ranch LLC (D. Mont. 2021). “Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-301 . In other words, the allegations forming the basis of Rhoten’s third claim, brought under the WDEA, rest on allegations of conduct rendered expressly unlawful by the MHRA.”
Hershberger v. Marquart, 2017 MT 171N (Mont. 2017). “¶9 Marquart next argues that the judgment entered against him was improper due to Hershberger’s discrimination and unlawful retaliation against him, in violation of §§ 49-2-301 and -305, MCA. There is nothing in the record to support Marquart’s discrimination claim; indeed, the…”
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.