49-2-601. Criminal penalty. A person, educational institution, or financial institution, either public or private, or a governmental entity or agency who or which willfully engages in an unlawful discriminatory practice prohibited by this chapter or willfully resists, prevents, impedes, or interferes with the commission, the department, or any of its authorized representatives in the performance of a duty under this chapter or who or which willfully violates an order of the commission or willfully violates this chapter in any other manner is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine of not more than $500 or by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both.
Montana Code Annotated
Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-601 (2026)
Criminal Penalty
✓ 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 6. Penalties
Criminal Penalty
History: En. 64-312 by Sec. 9, Ch. 283, L. 1974; amd. Sec. 10, Ch. 524, L. 1975; R.C.M. 1947, 64-312(3); amd. Sec. 12, Ch. 177, L. 1979.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2022 · leading case: Saucier Ex Rel. Mallory v. McDonald's Restaurants of Montana, Inc., 2008 MT 63 (Mont. 2008).
Saucier Ex Rel. Mallory v. McDonald's Restaurants of Montana, Inc., 2008 MT 63 (Mont. 2008). “Section 49-2-601, MCA. Conversely, under Title 45 it is a felony offense to knowingly have sexual intercourse with a person whose mental condition renders him or her incapable of consent.”
Hansen v. Bozeman Police Dep't, 2015 MT 143 (Mont. 2015). “¶24 We agree with the District Court’s conclusion that the Human Rights Act on its face does not make law enforcement officers responsible for remedying unlawful discrimination following the aggrieved party’s call to 911.”
Montana Med. Ass'n v. Knudsen (D. Mont. 2022). “§ 49-2-601. A person or institution “who or which willfully engages in an unlawful discriminatory practice prohibited by this chapter .”
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.