Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 49. HUMAN RIGHTS · CHAPTER 2. ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION · Part 5. Enforcement
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-501 (2026)

Filing Complaints

✓ 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 49
  3. CHAPTER 2
  4. Part 5
  5. 49-2-501 Filing complaints

TITLE 49. HUMAN RIGHTS

CHAPTER 2. ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION

Part 5. Enforcement

Filing Complaints

49-2-501. Filing complaints. (1) A person claiming to be aggrieved by any discriminatory practice prohibited by this chapter may file a complaint with the department.

(2) A complaint may be filed on behalf of a person charging unlawful discrimination prohibited by this chapter if the person acting on behalf of the charging party is the charging party's guardian, attorney, or duly authorized representative or an advocacy group, labor organization, or other organization acting as an authorized representative.

(3) The complaint must be written and verified and must state the name and address of the party alleged to have engaged in the discriminatory practice and the particulars of the alleged discriminatory practice.

(4) (a) Except as provided in 49-2-510 and subsection (4)(b) of this section, a complaint under this chapter must be filed with the department within 180 days after the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice occurred or was discovered.

(b) If the charging party has initiated efforts to resolve the dispute underlying the complaint by filing a grievance in accordance with any grievance procedure established by a collective bargaining agreement, contract, or written rule or policy, the complaint may be filed within 180 days after the conclusion of the grievance procedure if the grievance procedure concludes within 120 days after the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice occurred or was discovered. If the grievance procedure does not conclude within 120 days, the complaint must be filed within 300 days after the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice occurred or was discovered.

(5) If the department determines that the complaint is untimely, it shall dismiss the complaint on a finding of no reasonable cause. A charging party may file objections to the dismissal with the commission pursuant to 49-2-511.

History: En. 64-308 by Sec. 5, Ch. 283, L. 1974; amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 524, L. 1975; R.C.M. 1947, 64-308(1); amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 177, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 415, L. 1987; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 801, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 7, Ch. 467, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 28, L. 2007.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Hash v. U.S. West Commc'ns Servs., 886 P.2d 442 (Mont. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hash v. U.S. West Commc'ns Servs., 886 P.2d 442 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 61× “Hash argues that the statutory period started at the termination date because she hoped and believed, up to the time of termination, that she would be given another U.”
Citizens Awareness Network v. Montana Bd. of Env't Review, 2010 MT 10 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 16× “The plaintiff, however, failed to amend her complaint within the 180-day period for filing a complaint under § 49-2-501, MCA. Simmons, 246 Mont. at 207 , 806 P.”
Bruner v. Yellowstone Cnty., 900 P.2d 901 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 6× “Thus, her claim of negligent retention is not preempted by the HBA and is not controlled by the time constraints of § 49-2-501, MCA, which requires filing with the HRA within 180 days or with the EEOC within 300 days.”
Saucier Ex Rel. Mallory v. McDonald's Restaurants of Montana, Inc., 2008 MT 63 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 8× “Section 49-2-501(1), (4)(a), MCA; Admin. R.”
Borges v. Missoula Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 2018 MT 14 (Mont. 2018). · cites it 5× “Section 49-2-512(1), MCA. A claim for relief "may not be entertained by a district court other than by the procedures specified" in the Act.”
Powell v. Salvation Army, 951 P.2d 1352 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 16× “The employer moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to timely file her complaint with the MHRC pursuant to § 49-2-501(4), MCA. We affirmed the district court’s decision granting the employer’s motion for summary judgment, and concluded her cause…”
Vainio v. Brookshire, 852 P.2d 596 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 10× “Did the District Court err in finding that Helen Vainio was a party to the action? Appellant asserts that Brookshire failed to name Helen Vainio in her complaint to the HRC as required by § 49-2-501(1), MCA, and 24.9.209(2), ARM.”
Griffith v. Butte Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2010 MT 246 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 4× “Griffith complied with § 49-2-501, MCA, and filed a timely complaint with the HRB.”
Benjamin v. Anderson, 2005 MT 123 (Mont. 2005). · cites it 4× “Noting that pursuant to § 49-2-501(4), MCA, a claimant has 180 days in which to file a complaint with the Department of Labor and Industry, and that Benjamin did not file her Complaint until September 17, 1999--well beyond 180 days from the December 1998 Christmas party--they…”
Hilands Golf Club v. Ashmore, 2002 MT 8 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 4× “¶ 8 On August 20, 1990, Ashmore filed a preliminary complaint with the Montana Human Rights Commission pursuant to § 49-2-501(1), MCA, alleging gender discrimination.”
Simmons v. Mountain Bell, 806 P.2d 6 (Mont. 1990). · cites it 12× “Mountain Bell and Montana Human Rights Commission appeal the decision made by the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, which held that the 180-day statute of limitations under § 49-2-501, MCA, did not apply to an amended complaint filed by Sabrina Simmons…”
Drinkwalter v. Shipton Supply Co., Inc., 732 P.2d 1335 (Mont. 1987). · cites it 7× “If we were to decide the Human Rights Act provides the sole and exclusive remedy for all claims arising out of sexual harassment, we would also be imposing the 180 day statute of limitation found in § 49-2-501(2), MCA, on every possible remedy.”
Show all 40 citing cases →
— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-501(1) — 9 cases
Saucier Ex Rel. Mallory v. McDonald's Restaurants of Montana, Inc., 2008 MT 63 (Mont. 2008). “Section 49-2-501(1), (4)(a), MCA; Admin. R.”
Vainio v. Brookshire, 852 P.2d 596 (Mont. 1993). “Did the District Court err in finding that Helen Vainio was a party to the action? Appellant asserts that Brookshire failed to name Helen Vainio in her complaint to the HRC as required by § 49-2-501(1), MCA, and 24.9.209(2), ARM.”
Hilands Golf Club v. Ashmore, 2002 MT 8 (Mont. 2002). “¶ 8 On August 20, 1990, Ashmore filed a preliminary complaint with the Montana Human Rights Commission pursuant to § 49-2-501(1), MCA, alleging gender discrimination.”
Baxter Homeowners Ass'n v. Angel, 2013 MT 83 (Mont. 2013).
Maffit v. City of Helena, 2021 MT 14 (Mont. 2021).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-501(2) — 4 cases
Drinkwalter v. Shipton Supply Co., Inc., 732 P.2d 1335 (Mont. 1987). “If we were to decide the Human Rights Act provides the sole and exclusive remedy for all claims arising out of sexual harassment, we would also be imposing the 180 day statute of limitation found in § 49-2-501(2), MCA, on every possible remedy.”
Chance v. Harrison, 899 P.2d 537 (Mont. 1995).
LaFriniere v. Grp. W Cable, Inc., 670 F. Supp. 897 (D. Mont. 1987).
Maffit v. City of Helena, 2021 MT 14 (Mont. 2021).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-501(2)(a) — 4 cases
Hash v. U.S. West Commc'ns Servs., 886 P.2d 442 (Mont. 1994). “Hash argues that the statutory period started at the termination date because she hoped and believed, up to the time of termination, that she would be given another U.”
Harrison v. Chance, 797 P.2d 200 (Mont. 1990).
Skites v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Of, 1999 MT 301 (Mont. 1999).
Zolnikov v. Nat. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 2023 MT 51 (Mont. 2023).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-501(2)(b) — 1 case
Hash v. U.S. West Commc'ns Servs., 886 P.2d 442 (Mont. 1994). “Hash argues that the statutory period started at the termination date because she hoped and believed, up to the time of termination, that she would be given another U.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-501(2)(c) — 3 cases
Hash v. U.S. West Commc'ns Servs., 886 P.2d 442 (Mont. 1994). “Hash argues that the statutory period started at the termination date because she hoped and believed, up to the time of termination, that she would be given another U.”
LaFriniere v. Grp. W Cable, Inc., 670 F. Supp. 897 (D. Mont. 1987).
Skites v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Of, 1999 MT 301 (Mont. 1999).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-501(3) — 2 cases
Borges v. Missoula Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 2018 MT 14 (Mont. 2018). “Section 49-2-512(1), MCA. A claim for relief "may not be entertained by a district court other than by the procedures specified" in the Act.”
Jones v. All Star Painting Inc., 2018 MT 70 (Mont. 2018).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-501(4) — 5 cases
Benjamin v. Anderson, 2005 MT 123 (Mont. 2005). “Noting that pursuant to § 49-2-501(4), MCA, a claimant has 180 days in which to file a complaint with the Department of Labor and Industry, and that Benjamin did not file her Complaint until September 17, 1999--well beyond 180 days from the December 1998 Christmas party--they…”
Powell v. Salvation Army, 951 P.2d 1352 (Mont. 1997). “The employer moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to timely file her complaint with the MHRC pursuant to § 49-2-501(4), MCA. We affirmed the district court’s decision granting the employer’s motion for summary judgment, and concluded her cause…”
Johnson v. Dodson Pub. Schs. Dist. No. 2-A(C), 463 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Mont. 2006).
Sanchez v. Great Falls Pub. Schoo, 2003 MT 301N (Mont. 2003).
J. Ku v. Human Rights, 2022 MT 102N (Mont. 2022).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-501(4)(a) — 5 cases
Powell v. Salvation Army, 951 P.2d 1352 (Mont. 1997). “The employer moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to timely file her complaint with the MHRC pursuant to § 49-2-501(4), MCA. We affirmed the district court’s decision granting the employer’s motion for summary judgment, and concluded her cause…”
Citizens Awareness Network v. Montana Bd. of Env't Review, 2010 MT 10 (Mont. 2010). “The plaintiff, however, failed to amend her complaint within the 180-day period for filing a complaint under § 49-2-501, MCA. Simmons, 246 Mont. at 207 , 806 P.”
C. Fuson v. CHS, 2023 MT 232N (Mont. 2023).
Zolnikov v. Nat. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 2023 MT 51 (Mont. 2023).
Lenoir v. Sellers, 2004 MT 89N (Mont. 2004).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-501(4)(b) — 1 case
Powell v. Salvation Army, 951 P.2d 1352 (Mont. 1997). “The employer moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to timely file her complaint with the MHRC pursuant to § 49-2-501(4), MCA. We affirmed the district court’s decision granting the employer’s motion for summary judgment, and concluded her cause…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-501(c) — 1 case
Hash v. U.S. West Commc'ns Servs., 886 P.2d 442 (Mont. 1994). “Hash argues that the statutory period started at the termination date because she hoped and believed, up to the time of termination, that she would be given another U.”
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.