49-4-101. Discrimination prohibited. It is unlawful to discriminate, in hiring or employment, against a person because of the person's physical disability. There is no discrimination when the nature or extent of the disability reasonably precludes the performance of the particular employment or when the particular employment may subject the person with a disability or that person's fellow employees to physical harm.
Montana Code Annotated
Mont. Code Ann. § 49-4-101 (2026)
Discrimination Prohibited
✓ 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 4. RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Part 1. Discrimination in Employment
Discrimination Prohibited
History: En. Sec. 3, Ch. 77, L. 1974; R.C.M. 1947, 64-304(part); amd. Sec. 20, Ch. 407, L. 1993.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2023 · leading case: Owens v. Parker Drilling Co., 676 P.2d 162 (Mont. 1984).
Owens v. Parker Drilling Co., 676 P.2d 162 (Mont. 1984). “" The present case involves a determination of whether the statute, section 49-4-101, MCA was designed to protect the substantial rights of employees such as Owens from a high risk of harm, and whether Parker's alleged violation of the statute was reckless.”
Hafner v. Conoco, Inc., 1999 MT 68 (Mont. 1999). “The Court held that § 49-4-101, MCA, was the proper standard for determining risk of injury and, therefore, the District Court did not err in ruling that Conoco had produced a non-discriminatory reason for its action.”
Hafner v. Conoco, Inc., 886 P.2d 947 (Mont. 1994). “There is no discrimination when the nature or extent of the disability reasonably precludes the performance of the particular employment or when the particular employment may subject the person with a disability or that person's fellow employees to physical harm.”
Reeves v. Dairy Queen, Inc., 1998 MT 13 (Mont. 1998). “Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment on Reeves’ claim that she was terminated in violation of § 49-4-101, MCA? ¶4 2. Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment on Reeves’ claim that Dairy Queen failed to provide reasonable accommodation? *199…”
Laudert v. Richland Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 2000 MT 218 (Mont. 2000). “" Similarly, § 49-4-101, MCA, provides that "[i]t is unlawful to discriminate, in hiring or employment, against a person because of the person's physical disability.”
Nicholson v. United Pac. Ins., 710 P.2d 1342 (Mont. 1985). “2d 162 , the employer allegedly violated §§ 49-4-101 and -102, MCA, prohibiting an employer from discharging an employee solely because he was handicapped.”
Lavia v. Pennsylvania, Dep't of Corr., 224 F.3d 190 (3rd Cir. 2000). “055; Mont.Code Ann. § 49-4-101; Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-1104; Nev.”
Adamson v. Pondera Cnty., 2004 MT 27 (Mont. 2004). “There is no discrimination when the nature or extent of the disability reasonably precludes the performance of the particular employment or when the particular employment may subject the person with a disability or that person’s fellow employees to physical harm.”
Stevens v. Illinois Dep't of Transp., 210 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2000). “055; Mont. Code Ann. § 49-4-101 ; Neb.Rev.Stat.”
Staton v. City & Cnty. of Butte-Silver Bow (D. Mont. 2023). “MHRA BSB argues that Staton’s amended complaint alleges a violation of Mont. Code Ann. § 49-4-101 . BSB notes that Mont.”
Wagenman v. W. Energy, 1999 MT 266N (Mont. 1999). “Employers may also discriminate on the basis of a physical handicap when the "nature or extent of the handicap reasonably precludes the performance of the particular employment or where the particular employment may subject the handicapped .”
Staton v. City & Cnty. of Butte-Silver Bow (D. Mont. 2022). “§ 49-4-101 ); violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) ( 28 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.