Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-512 (2026)

Filing In District Court -- Compliance With Administrative Procedures Required

✓ 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

Filing In District Court -- Compliance With Administrative Procedures Required

49-2-512. Filing in district court -- compliance with administrative procedures required. (1) The 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 provisions of Article II, section 4, of the Montana constitution or 49-1-102. A claim or request for relief based upon the acts may not be entertained by a district court other than by the procedures specified in this chapter.

(2) In addition to dismissal under 49-2-501(5) or 49-2-504(7)(b), the department shall dismiss a complaint if:

(a) the charging party fails to keep the department advised of changes of address and the department finds that the failure has impeded the administrative proceedings; or

(b) a period of 12 months has elapsed from the filing of a complaint and neither the department nor the commission has held a hearing pursuant to 49-2-505 or an informal hearing pursuant to 49-2-511. However, the department or the commission may refuse to dismiss a complaint under this subsection (2)(b) if:

(i) more than 30 days have elapsed since service of notice of hearing under 49-2-505;

(ii) the parties have stipulated to a reasonable extension of the timeframes; or

(iii) through litigation a party has unsuccessfully sought to prevent the department or the commission from conducting administrative proceedings on the complaint.

(3) Within 90 days after the department has issued a notice of dismissal pursuant to subsection (2), the charging party may commence a civil action for appropriate relief on the merits of the case in the district court in the district in which the alleged violation occurred. If the charging party fails to commence a civil action within 90 days after the dismissal has been issued, the claim is barred. The court may provide the same relief as described in 49-2-506. In addition, the court may in its discretion allow the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs.

History: En. Sec. 8, Ch. 28, L. 2007.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case: Borges v. Missoula Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 2018 MT 14 (Mont. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Borges v. Missoula Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 2018 MT 14 (Mont. 2018). · cites it 12× “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.”

Griffith v. Butte Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2010 MT 246 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 10× “) ¶ 32 Section 49-2-512, MCA. This section became a stand-alone section in 2007.”

Lay v. State Dep't of Military Affairs, Disaster & Emergency Servs. Div., 2015 MT 158 (Mont. 2015). · cites it 14× “Lay makes a passing reference to the court’s determination in a single sentence, stating: “Nowhere in the causes of action alleged under Dorwart, Monell, or the Wrongful Discharge Act is there any kind of requirement that Lay go through the procedures identified in the Human…”

Kershaw v. Montana Dep't of Transp., 2011 MT 170 (Mont. 2011). · cites it 2× “The WDEA does not provide remedies to employees covered by a written collective bargaining agreement, § 39-2-912(2), MCA; to employees having a written employment contract for a specific term, § 39-2-912(2), MCA; or to employees covered by another state or federal statute which…”

Stricker v. Blaine Cnty., 2023 MT 209 (Mont. 2023). · cites it 4× “¶25 The Montana Human Rights Act establishes the exclusive remedy for acts constituting an alleged violation of statutes prohibiting retaliation or illegal discrimination, including acts that also may constitute a violation of the discrimination provision of 10 Article II,…”

Hansen v. Bozeman Police Dep't, 2015 MT 143 (Mont. 2015). · cites it 3× “Montana law, § 49-2-501 to -504, MCA, provides that the duty to enforce the Human *289 Rights Act rests with the Montana Department of Labor and Industry (Department).”

Lake v. Mtdli, 2025 MT 224N (Mont. 2025). · cites it 15× “Section 49-2-512(1), MCA. 6 ¶14 If the HRB dismisses the charging party’s complaint, the party may either commence a civil action within 90 days or file an objection to the dismissal with the HRC within 14 days.”

Fayant v. ALK-Abello, Inc. (D. Mont. 2025). · cites it 9× “Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-512 (1). Any person seeking to pursue a claim of discrimination in court must first file a complaint with the Montana Human Rights Bureau stating “the particulars of the alleged discriminatory practice.”

Conlan v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (D. Mont. 2020). · cites it 6× “Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-512 (1). The Act’s statutory procedure is clear.”

Meyers (D. Mont. 2026). · cites it 5× “See Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-512 (3) (“If the charging party fails to commence a civil action within 90 days after the dismissal has been issued, the claim is barred.”

J. Ku v. Human Rights, 2022 MT 102N (Mont. 2022). · cites it 3× “Even if a complaint alleges discrimination by the HRB itself, the plaintiff must still follow the procedures in the Human Rights Act and file first with the HRB before appealing any dismissal to district court. The HRB typically transfers the investigation of claims against…”

Lechowski-Mercado v. Seeley Swan High Sch. (D. Mont. 2022). · cites it 3× “Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-512 (1). This is true even if a litigant premises what is really an MHRA claim under other legal theories such as the Montana Constitution.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-512(1) — 11 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.”

Griffith v. Butte Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2010 MT 246 (Mont. 2010). “) ¶ 32 Section 49-2-512, MCA. This section became a stand-alone section in 2007.”

Lay v. State Dep't of Military Affairs, Disaster & Emergency Servs. Div., 2015 MT 158 (Mont. 2015). “Lay makes a passing reference to the court’s determination in a single sentence, stating: “Nowhere in the causes of action alleged under Dorwart, Monell, or the Wrongful Discharge Act is there any kind of requirement that Lay go through the procedures identified in the Human…”

Kershaw v. Montana Dep't of Transp., 2011 MT 170 (Mont. 2011). “The WDEA does not provide remedies to employees covered by a written collective bargaining agreement, § 39-2-912(2), MCA; to employees having a written employment contract for a specific term, § 39-2-912(2), MCA; or to employees covered by another state or federal statute which…”

Hansen v. Bozeman Police Dep't, 2015 MT 143 (Mont. 2015). “Montana law, § 49-2-501 to -504, MCA, provides that the duty to enforce the Human *289 Rights Act rests with the Montana Department of Labor and Industry (Department).”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-512(3) — 2 cases

Lake v. Mtdli, 2025 MT 224N (Mont. 2025). “Section 49-2-512(1), MCA. 6 ¶14 If the HRB dismisses the charging party’s complaint, the party may either commence a civil action within 90 days or file an objection to the dismissal with the HRC within 14 days.”

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.