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

Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-509 (2026)

Repealed

✓ 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  5. 49-2-509 Repealed

TITLE 49. HUMAN RIGHTS

CHAPTER 2. ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION

Part 5. Enforcement

Repealed

49-2-509. Repealed. Sec. 10, Ch. 28, L. 2007.

History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 505, L. 1983; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 511, L. 1987; amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 801, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 13, Ch. 467, L. 1997.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases, 1986–2010 · leading case: Saucier Ex Rel. Mallory v. McDonald's Restaurants of Montana, Inc., 2008 MT 63 (Mont. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Saucier Ex Rel. Mallory v. McDonald's Restaurants of Montana, Inc., 2008 MT 63 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 52× “Section 49-2-509(3)-(5), MCA. Again, however, the case may not be tried before a jury, §§ 49-2-505, 49-2-509(7), MCA; Vainio, 258 Mont.”
Jones v. Montana Univ. Sys., 2007 MT 82 (Mont. 2007). · cites it 17× “¶ 38 Section 49-2-509(7), MCA, provides in pertinent part: [t]he provisions of this chapter establish the exclusive remedy for acts constituting an alleged violation of chapter 3 or this chapter, including acts that may otherwise also constitute a violation of the discrimination…”
Hash v. U.S. West Commc'ns Servs., 886 P.2d 442 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 40× “Section 49-2-509(2)(b), MCA, provides that: (2) The commission staff may refuse to permit removal of a case to district court if: .”
Harrison v. Chance, 797 P.2d 200 (Mont. 1990). · cites it 20× “The legislature expressed its intent that the Commission provide the exclusive remedy for illegal discrimination when it enacted subsection (7) of § 49-2-509, MCA. To allow such recharacterization of what is at heart a sexual discrimination claim, would be to eviscerate the…”
Arthur v. Pierre Ltd., 2004 MT 303 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 17× “Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment to the Defendants on Arthur’s sixth claim based on its determination that the claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations? ¶29 In their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants argued that Arthur’s sexual…”
Bruner v. Yellowstone Cnty., 900 P.2d 901 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 8× “The legislature expressed its intent that the Commission provide the exclusive remedy for illegal discrimination when it enacted subsection (7) of § 49-2-509, MCA. To allow such recharacterization of what is at heart a sexual discrimination claim, would be to eviscerate the…”
Griffith v. Butte Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2010 MT 246 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 10× “The 2007 Legislature added new subsection (7)(b) to the then-existing § 49-2-504, MCA: (7)(b) If the department finds that there is no reasonable cause to believe that unlawful discrimination occurred, it shall issue a notice of dismissal and dismiss the case from the…”
Williams v. Zortman Mining, Inc., 914 P.2d 971 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 26× “See § 49-2-509, MCA. On January 10, 1994 Zortman moved to dismiss Williams' complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or, alternatively, for judgment on the pleadings, based on the statute of limitations.”
Chance v. Harrison, 899 P.2d 537 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 26× “The court went on to conclude that, pursuant to § 49-2-509, MCA, a claimant alleging sexual harassment must exhaust his or her administrative remedies with the Montana Human Rights Commission.”
Fandrich v. Capital Ford Lincoln Mercury, 901 P.2d 112 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 14× “On November 22, 1993, the District Court questioned whether it had jurisdiction to consider the amended complaint, or whether the Montana Human Rights Act found at §§ 49-1-101 through 49-4-511, MCA, was the Fandrichs’ exclusive remedy pursuant to § 49-2-509(7), MCA. In response…”
Shields v. Helena Sch. Dist. No. 1, 943 P.2d 999 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 15× “Section 49-2-509(7), MCA. In their First Amended Complaint, the Shieldses alleged that they were unlawfully discriminated against by certain Defendants because of Nathan’s disabilities.”
Romero v. J & J TIRE, 777 P.2d 292 (Mont. 1989). · cites it 7× “See § 49-2-509, MCA. We hold that the Act does not violate the U.”
Show all 35 citing cases →
Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-509(1): 5 cases
Romero v. J & J TIRE, 777 P.2d 292 (Mont. 1989). “See § 49-2-509, MCA. We hold that the Act does not violate the U.”
Mahan v. Farmers Union Cent. Exch., Inc., 768 P.2d 850 (Mont. 1989).
LaFriniere v. Grp. W Cable, Inc., 670 F. Supp. 897 (D. Mont. 1987).
Indian Health Bd. of Billings, Inc. v. Montana Dep't of Labor & Indus., 2008 MT 48 (Mont. 2008).
Univ. of Montana Found. v. Human Rights Comm'n, 726 P.2d 817 (Mont. 1986).
Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-509(1)(a): 1 case
Vainio v. Brookshire, 852 P.2d 596 (Mont. 1993).
Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-509(1)(b): 1 case
Mahan v. Farmers Union Cent. Exch., Inc., 768 P.2d 850 (Mont. 1989).
Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-509(2): 2 cases
Williams v. Zortman Mining, Inc., 914 P.2d 971 (Mont. 1996). “See § 49-2-509, MCA. On January 10, 1994 Zortman moved to dismiss Williams' complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or, alternatively, for judgment on the pleadings, based on the statute of limitations.”
Indian Health Bd. of Billings, Inc. v. Montana Dep't of Labor & Indus., 2008 MT 48 (Mont. 2008).
Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-509(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. § 49-2-509(2)(b): 2 cases
Hash v. U.S. West Commc'ns Servs., 886 P.2d 442 (Mont. 1994). “Section 49-2-509(2)(b), MCA, provides that: (2) The commission staff may refuse to permit removal of a case to district court if: .”
Indian Health Bd. of Billings, Inc. v. Montana Dep't of Labor & Indus., 2008 MT 48 (Mont. 2008).
Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-509(3): 3 cases
Saucier Ex Rel. Mallory v. McDonald's Restaurants of Montana, Inc., 2008 MT 63 (Mont. 2008). “Section 49-2-509(3)-(5), MCA. Again, however, the case may not be tried before a jury, §§ 49-2-505, 49-2-509(7), MCA; Vainio, 258 Mont.”
Breese v. Steel Mountain Enter., Inc., 716 P.2d 214 (Mont. 1986).
Miller-Wohl Co. v. Comm'r of Labor & Indus., 744 P.2d 871 (Mont. 1987).
Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-509(3)(a): 1 case
Hash v. U.S. West Commc'ns Servs., 886 P.2d 442 (Mont. 1994). “Section 49-2-509(2)(b), MCA, provides that: (2) The commission staff may refuse to permit removal of a case to district court if: .”
Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-509(3)(c): 1 case
Saucier Ex Rel. Mallory v. McDonald's Restaurants of Montana, Inc., 2008 MT 63 (Mont. 2008). “Section 49-2-509(3)-(5), MCA. Again, however, the case may not be tried before a jury, §§ 49-2-505, 49-2-509(7), MCA; Vainio, 258 Mont.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-509(3)(d): 1 case
Indian Health Bd. of Billings, Inc. v. Montana Dep't of Labor & Indus., 2008 MT 48 (Mont. 2008).
Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-509(4): 1 case
Indian Health Bd. of Billings, Inc. v. Montana Dep't of Labor & Indus., 2008 MT 48 (Mont. 2008).
Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-509(5): 5 cases
Williams v. Zortman Mining, Inc., 914 P.2d 971 (Mont. 1996). “See § 49-2-509, MCA. On January 10, 1994 Zortman moved to dismiss Williams' complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or, alternatively, for judgment on the pleadings, based on the statute of limitations.”
Saucier Ex Rel. Mallory v. McDonald's Restaurants of Montana, Inc., 2008 MT 63 (Mont. 2008). “Section 49-2-509(3)-(5), MCA. Again, however, the case may not be tried before a jury, §§ 49-2-505, 49-2-509(7), MCA; Vainio, 258 Mont.”
Arthur v. Pierre Ltd., 2004 MT 303 (Mont. 2004). “Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment to the Defendants on Arthur’s sixth claim based on its determination that the claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations? ¶29 In their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants argued that Arthur’s sexual…”
Hash v. U.S. West Commc'ns Servs., 886 P.2d 442 (Mont. 1994). “Section 49-2-509(2)(b), MCA, provides that: (2) The commission staff may refuse to permit removal of a case to district court if: .”
Horton v. Yellowstone Cnty. Treasu, 2006 MT 200N (Mont. 2006).
Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-509(6): 4 cases
Saucier Ex Rel. Mallory v. McDonald's Restaurants of Montana, Inc., 2008 MT 63 (Mont. 2008). “Section 49-2-509(3)-(5), MCA. Again, however, the case may not be tried before a jury, §§ 49-2-505, 49-2-509(7), MCA; Vainio, 258 Mont.”
Miller-Wohl Co. v. Comm'r of Labor & Indus., 744 P.2d 871 (Mont. 1987).
Stuart v. First Sec. Bank Hav, 2000 MT 309 (Mont. 2000).
Thorsen v. Mt. Dept. of Labor, 2005 MT 138N (Mont. 2005).
Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-509(7): 21 cases
Jones v. Montana Univ. Sys., 2007 MT 82 (Mont. 2007). “¶ 38 Section 49-2-509(7), MCA, provides in pertinent part: [t]he provisions of this chapter establish the exclusive remedy for acts constituting an alleged violation of chapter 3 or this chapter, including acts that may otherwise also constitute a violation of the discrimination…”
Saucier Ex Rel. Mallory v. McDonald's Restaurants of Montana, Inc., 2008 MT 63 (Mont. 2008). “Section 49-2-509(3)-(5), MCA. Again, however, the case may not be tried before a jury, §§ 49-2-505, 49-2-509(7), MCA; Vainio, 258 Mont.”
Harrison v. Chance, 797 P.2d 200 (Mont. 1990). “The legislature expressed its intent that the Commission provide the exclusive remedy for illegal discrimination when it enacted subsection (7) of § 49-2-509, MCA. To allow such recharacterization of what is at heart a sexual discrimination claim, would be to eviscerate the…”
Arthur v. Pierre Ltd., 2004 MT 303 (Mont. 2004). “Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment to the Defendants on Arthur’s sixth claim based on its determination that the claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations? ¶29 In their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants argued that Arthur’s sexual…”
Hash v. U.S. West Commc'ns Servs., 886 P.2d 442 (Mont. 1994). “Section 49-2-509(2)(b), MCA, provides that: (2) The commission staff may refuse to permit removal of a case to district court if: .”
Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-509(l)(a): 2 cases
Vainio v. Brookshire, 852 P.2d 596 (Mont. 1993).
Indian Health Bd. of Billings, Inc. v. Montana Dep't of Labor & Indus., 2008 MT 48 (Mont. 2008).
Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-509(l)(b): 2 cases
Indian Health Bd. of Billings, Inc. v. Montana Dep't of Labor & Indus., 2008 MT 48 (Mont. 2008).
Univ. of Montana Found. v. Human Rights Comm'n, 726 P.2d 817 (Mont. 1986).
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.