Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-310 (2026)

Maternity Leave -- Unlawful Acts Of Employers

✓ 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

Maternity Leave -- Unlawful Acts Of Employers

49-2-310. Maternity leave -- unlawful acts of employers. It is unlawful for an employer or an employer's agent to:

(1) terminate a woman's employment because of the woman's pregnancy;

(2) refuse to grant to the employee a reasonable leave of absence for the pregnancy;

(3) deny to the employee who is disabled as a result of pregnancy any compensation to which the employee is entitled as a result of the accumulation of disability or leave benefits accrued pursuant to plans maintained by the employer, provided that the employer may require disability as a result of pregnancy to be verified by medical certification that the employee is not able to perform employment duties; or

(4) require that an employee take a mandatory maternity leave for an unreasonable length of time.

History: En. 41-2602 by Sec. 2, Ch. 320, L. 1975; R.C.M. 1947, 41-2602(1); amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 285, L. 1983; MCA 1981, 39-7-203; redes. 49-2-310 by Sec. 2, Ch. 285, L. 1983; amd. Sec. 1800, Ch. 56, L. 2009.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2021 · leading case: California Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272 (1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

California Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272 (1987). · cites it 2× “1977), now codified at Mont. Code Ann. §§ 49-2-310 and 49-2-311 (1986).”

Miller-Wohl Co. v. Comm'r of Labor & Indus., 744 P.2d 871 (Mont. 1987). · cites it 4× “[2] The company conceded that it violated the Montana Maternity Leave Act, §§ 49-2-310 and -311, MCA. The Company had further submitted payments of the net back pay and the amounts of penalty with accrued interest to the complainant via her attorney, and the amounts tendered…”

Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Peterson, 866 P.2d 241 (Mont. 1993). “Although we were primarily concerned with the question of federal preemption of the Montana Maternity Leave Act, §§ 49-2-310 and -311, MCA, we stated that: [pjregnancy is a condition unique to women, and the ability to become pregnant is a primary characteristic of the female…”

Maffit v. City of Helena, 2021 MT 14 (Mont. 2021). “…insurance and retirement plans (§ 49-2-309, MCA), and discrimination based on maternity and pregnancy-related leave (§§ 49-2-310 and -311, MCA). Pursuant to § 46-2-101(2), MCA, an “aggrieved party” is “a person . . . who has been or is likely to be specially and injuriously…”

Miller-Wohl Co. v. Comm'r of Labor & Indus., 692 P.2d 1243 (Mont. 1984). · cites it 8× “Under the MMLA, it is unlawful in Montana for an employer to terminate a woman’s employment because of her pregnancy, or to refuse to grant the employee a reasonable leave of absence for such pregnancy.”

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.