Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-505 (2026)

Contested Case Hearing -- Appeal To Commission -- Final Agency Decision

✓ 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 5. Enforcement

Contested Case Hearing -- Appeal To Commission -- Final Agency Decision

49-2-505. Contested case hearing -- appeal to commission -- final agency decision. (1) The department shall hold a contested case hearing on a complaint that is certified for hearing under 49-2-504 or that is remanded for hearing by the commission or by a reviewing court. The department shall serve notice of the hearing and a copy of the complaint on the parties.

(2) If the parties mutually agree to extend the time for hearing beyond 12 months after the complaint is filed, then the parties shall stipulate to a schedule for proceedings to be established by the department. The department shall, not later than 395 days after the complaint was filed, set a date for an administrative hearing in the case in accordance with the stipulated schedule. After a hearing date is set, the department may, in its sole discretion, issue a continuance of the hearing date only upon a showing of good cause.

(3) (a) The hearing must be held by the department in the county where the unlawful conduct is alleged to have occurred unless a party requests and is granted a change of venue for good cause shown. The case in support of the complaint may be presented before the department by the charging party or an attorney representing the charging party. The hearing must be held in accordance with the applicable portions of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure.

(b) Upon request of the hearings officer, the department may present evidence with regard to activity conducted. However, except in cases brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 3601, et seq., the department may not represent either party in a contested case hearing.

(c) If the case is not settled, fully decided on order or motion, or otherwise resolved, after a hearing, the hearings officer shall issue a decision. If the decision is not appealed to the commission within 14 days as provided in subsection (4), the decision becomes final and is not appealable to district court.

(4) A party may appeal a decision of the hearings officer by filing an appeal with the commission within 14 days after the issuance of the notice of decision of the administrative hearing.

(5) The commission shall hear all appeals within 120 days of receipt of an appeal. The commission may affirm, reject, or modify the decision in whole or in part. The commission shall render a final agency decision within 90 days of hearing the appeal.

(6) All hearings conducted under this section may, upon stipulation of the parties, be heard telephonically.

(7) The department or the commission may make provisions for defraying the expenses of an indigent party in a hearing held pursuant to this chapter.

(8) The prevailing party in a hearing under this section may bring an action in district court for attorney fees and costs. The court in its discretion may allow the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs. An action under this section must comply with the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure.

(9) Within 30 days after the commission issues a final agency decision in writing under subsection (5), a party may petition a district court for judicial review of the final agency decision as provided in 2-4-702.

History: En. 64-308 by Sec. 5, Ch. 283, L. 1974; amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 524, L. 1975; R.C.M. 1947, 64-308(5), (6); amd. Sec. 9, Ch. 177, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 709, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 10, Ch. 467, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 28, L. 2007.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 28 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Laudert v. Richland Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 2000 MT 218 (Mont. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Laudert v. Richland Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 2000 MT 218 (Mont. 2000). · cites it 63× “) ¶ 48 A district court's award of attorney fees to a prevailing party in a contested case hearing is governed by § 49-2-505(7), MCA, which provides that "[t]he court in its discretion may allow the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees.”

BNSF Ry. Co. v. Cringle, 2010 MT 290 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 104× “" ¶35 Pursuant to its constitutional authority, the Legislature enacted the appeal provisions at issue in this case, particularly, § 49-2-505, MCA. Subsection (4) provides that "[a] party may appeal a decision of the hearings officer by filing an appeal with the commission…”

Blaine & Hill Co. v. Stricker, 2017 MT 80 (Mont. 2017). · cites it 15× “In that context, § 40-2-505(5), MCA, provides that if a party appeals the decision of a hearing officer, the Commission must hear the case within 120 days of the appeal.”

BNSF Ry. Co. v. Cringle, 2012 MT 143 (Mont. 2012). · cites it 63× “The Commission argued that its decision was in accordance with § 49-2-505(3)(c), MCA, and that it did not have discretion to extend the statutory deadline.”

Laudert v. Richland Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't & Human Rights Comm'n, 2001 MT 287 (Mont. 2001). · cites it 20× “¶ 7 Laudert filed a Petition for Judicial Review to the District Court, reasserting his monetary damage claim and seeking reasonable attorney fees pursuant to § 49-2-505(7), MCA. RCSD did not contest the order to submit a written policy before the District Court.”

Saucier Ex Rel. Mallory v. McDonald's Restaurants of Montana, Inc., 2008 MT 63 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 14× “Thus, a discrimination claim in district court may not be tried before a jury because the MHRA provides for only a "contested case hearing" conducted in accordance with the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Pannoni v. Bd. of Trs., Browning Sch. Dist. No. 9, 2004 MT 130 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 14× “, applicable to human rights complaints pursuant to § 49-2-505(3), MCA. They also contend that § 25-10-501, MCA, authorizes the recovery of costs.”

Tripp v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., 2005 MT 121 (Mont. 2005). · cites it 8× “In reviewing the award of attorney fees to the defendant school district, we cited § 49-2-505(4), MCA (1991) (now § 49-2-505(7), MCA), which states, “The prevailing party in a hearing under this section may bring an action in district court for attorneys’ fees.”

Wagner v. Empire Dev. Corp., 743 P.2d 586 (Mont. 1987). · cites it 27× “Subsequently, Wagner requested attorney's fees provided for in § 49-2-505(4), MCA, part of the Montana Human Rights Act.”

Green v. Gerber Stockton Oil, 2013 MT 35 (Mont. 2013). · cites it 6× “Relying on Davis and Miller, among others, we noted in Cringle that “[t]he [L]egislature does not deprive the courts of subject matter jurisdiction when it enacts filing or notice deadlines. . . . We have emphasized the importance of not confusing the situation of a claimant’s…”

Weidow v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2010 MT 292 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 4× “The court in Cringle had refused to hear the railroad's petition for judicial review based on its determination that the expiration of the 14-day appeal period set forth in § 49-2-505(3)(c), MCA, had deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction.”

McCann v. Trs., Dodson Sch. Dist., 816 P.2d 435 (Mont. 1991). · cites it 6× “The District Court for the Seventeenth Judicial District, Phillips County, granted summary judgment for the Trustees of Dodson School District (school district) in this action for attorney fees pursuant to § 49-2-505(4), MCA. Lama J. McCann appeals.”

Show all 28 citing cases →

— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-505(1) — 1 case

Saucier Ex Rel. Mallory v. McDonald's Restaurants of Montana, Inc., 2008 MT 63 (Mont. 2008). “Thus, a discrimination claim in district court may not be tried before a jury because the MHRA provides for only a "contested case hearing" conducted in accordance with the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure.”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-505(2) — 2 cases

Walker v. Anaconda Co., 520 F. Supp. 1143 (D. Mont. 1981).

Indian Health Bd. of Billings, Inc. v. Montana Dep't of Labor & Indus., 2008 MT 48 (Mont. 2008).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-505(2)(a) — 1 case

Indian Health Bd. of Billings, Inc. v. Montana Dep't of Labor & Indus., 2008 MT 48 (Mont. 2008).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-505(3) — 2 cases

Pannoni v. Bd. of Trs., Browning Sch. Dist. No. 9, 2004 MT 130 (Mont. 2004). “, applicable to human rights complaints pursuant to § 49-2-505(3), MCA. They also contend that § 25-10-501, MCA, authorizes the recovery of costs.”

Hansen v. Bozeman Police Dep't, 2015 MT 143 (Mont. 2015).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-505(3)(a) — 2 cases

Jones v. All Star Painting Inc., 2018 MT 70 (Mont. 2018).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-505(3)(c) — 5 cases

BNSF Ry. Co. v. Cringle, 2010 MT 290 (Mont. 2010). “" ¶35 Pursuant to its constitutional authority, the Legislature enacted the appeal provisions at issue in this case, particularly, § 49-2-505, MCA. Subsection (4) provides that "[a] party may appeal a decision of the hearings officer by filing an appeal with the commission…”

BNSF Ry. Co. v. Cringle, 2012 MT 143 (Mont. 2012). “The Commission argued that its decision was in accordance with § 49-2-505(3)(c), MCA, and that it did not have discretion to extend the statutory deadline.”

Green v. Gerber Stockton Oil, 2013 MT 35 (Mont. 2013). “Relying on Davis and Miller, among others, we noted in Cringle that “[t]he [L]egislature does not deprive the courts of subject matter jurisdiction when it enacts filing or notice deadlines. . . . We have emphasized the importance of not confusing the situation of a claimant’s…”

Weidow v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2010 MT 292 (Mont. 2010). “The court in Cringle had refused to hear the railroad's petition for judicial review based on its determination that the expiration of the 14-day appeal period set forth in § 49-2-505(3)(c), MCA, had deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction.”

Blaine & Hill Co. v. Stricker, 2017 MT 80 (Mont. 2017). “In that context, § 40-2-505(5), MCA, provides that if a party appeals the decision of a hearing officer, the Commission must hear the case within 120 days of the appeal.”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-505(4) — 9 cases

Wagner v. Empire Dev. Corp., 743 P.2d 586 (Mont. 1987). “Subsequently, Wagner requested attorney's fees provided for in § 49-2-505(4), MCA, part of the Montana Human Rights Act.”

Tripp v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., 2005 MT 121 (Mont. 2005). “In reviewing the award of attorney fees to the defendant school district, we cited § 49-2-505(4), MCA (1991) (now § 49-2-505(7), MCA), which states, “The prevailing party in a hearing under this section may bring an action in district court for attorneys’ fees.”

McCann v. Trs., Dodson Sch. Dist., 816 P.2d 435 (Mont. 1991). “The District Court for the Seventeenth Judicial District, Phillips County, granted summary judgment for the Trustees of Dodson School District (school district) in this action for attorney fees pursuant to § 49-2-505(4), MCA. Lama J. McCann appeals.”

Vainio v. Brookshire, 852 P.2d 596 (Mont. 1993).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-505(5) — 1 case

— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-505(7) — 4 cases

Laudert v. Richland Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 2000 MT 218 (Mont. 2000). “) ¶ 48 A district court's award of attorney fees to a prevailing party in a contested case hearing is governed by § 49-2-505(7), MCA, which provides that "[t]he court in its discretion may allow the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees.”

Laudert v. Richland Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't & Human Rights Comm'n, 2001 MT 287 (Mont. 2001). “¶ 7 Laudert filed a Petition for Judicial Review to the District Court, reasserting his monetary damage claim and seeking reasonable attorney fees pursuant to § 49-2-505(7), MCA. RCSD did not contest the order to submit a written policy before the District Court.”

Montana Fair Hous., Inc. v. Barnes, 2002 MT 353 (Mont. 2003).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-505(8) — 7 cases

Norval Elec. Coop v. Lawson, 2022 MT 245 (Mont. 2022).

Bollinger v. Billings Clinic, 434 P.3d 885 (Mont. 2019).

MEIC v. Governor, 2025 MT 112 (Mont. 2025).

Difolco v. MT State Hosp., 2026 MT 26 (Mont. 2026).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-505(9) — 1 case

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.