Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Employer terminated Employee's employment after receiving complaints regarding poor service and use of inappropriate language by Employee. The Department of Labor & Industry concluded Employee was not qualified for unemployment insurance benefits because she had been discharged for misconduct. A hearing officer awarded unemployment benefits to Employee, concluding that Employee had not been deliberately rude and thus had not engaged in misconduct. The Board of Labor Appeals affirmed. Employer petitioned for judicial review. The Department and Board filed a notice of non-participation indicating they would not participate in the proceeding but reserved the right to intervene if issues arose pertaining to them. The district court reversed, holding that Employee's conduct as established by the hearing officer's findings of fact constituted misconduct as a matter of law under the carelessness standard of Admin. R. M 24.11.460(1)(d). The Department appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Department did not preserve its evidentiary arguments for appeal; and (2) the district court did not err by determining that the evidence found by the Department constituted misconduct as a matter of law under the carelessness standard. View "Gary & Leo's Fresh Foods v. Dep't of Labor & Indus." on Justia Law

After Employee made allegations about a fellow employee that Employer concluded were patently false, Employee was discharged. Employee applied to the Department of Labor and Industry Unemployment Insurance Division (UID) for unemployment benefits, and the UID determined Employee had not been discharged for misconduct. Employer appealed. The Department of Labor and Industry Hearings Bureau reversed. The Board of Labor Appeals (BOLA) reversed, concluding that Employee's conduct was a good faith error in judgment and that Employer had presented insufficient evidence that Employee acted in willful or wanton or deliberate disregard for the interests of Employer. The District Court found substantial evidence to support BOLA's determination that Employer had not shown misconduct. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because BOLA's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence, it's legal conclusion that misconduct had not been shown was correct. View "Somont Oil Co. v. King" on Justia Law

The Montana Public Employees' Retirement Board (MPERB) denied death benefits to Petitioner Erene Briese (Erene) because her deceased husband, who had originally named her as his beneficiary under the Montana Sheriffs’ Retirement System (SRS), had later filed a new designation, dropping her as a beneficiary, while marital dissolution proceedings were pending. Erene appealed to the District Court, which affirmed the MPERB’s order. Erene then appealed the District Court’s order to the Supreme Court. "At a minimum," the Supreme Court agreed with those courts that have held that "a court has equitable power to order a return to the status quo when a party violating a temporary restraining order has died. Thus, in this case, the District Court should have invalidated the husband's 2006 change of beneficiaries because it was made in violation of the statutorily-mandated restraining order, and should have determined that his 2001 designation of Erene was "the most recent membership card filed with the board." View "Briese v. MPER Board" on Justia Law

The district court entered judgment for the City of Cut Bank on Petitioner Arthur F. Rooney's complaint that he was wrongfully terminated from employment as a City police officer. Petitioner appealed the court's decision that his termination did not violate Montana's Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act (WDEA). The City cross-appealed the district court's earlier interlocutory order which denied the City's motion to dismiss the WDEA claim. Because the Supreme Court reversed the interlocutory ruling, it did not reach the issues raised by Petitioner. The Court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the City on this alternative ground. View "Rooney v. City of Cut Bank" on Justia Law

Richard Ford suffered a work-related injury to his neck. He was diagnosed with a cervical strain, and Sentry Casualty Company accepted liability and paid benefits for this injury. During Ford’s treatment, he underwent an MRI which revealed a more serious cervical disc condition. Ford claimed that the workplace accident caused or aggravated this condition and that Sentry was liable for surgery to address it. Ford also claimed that Sentry was liable for ongoing temporary total disability benefits and that Sentry had unreasonably adjusted his claim. Sentry denied liability for Ford’s cervical disc condition based on the opinions of several doctors that the condition was not related to the industrial accident. Sentry also maintained that Ford reached maximum medical improvement, that he has been released to return to work without restrictions, and that it reasonably adjusted his claim. The dispute ultimately reached the Workers’ Compensation Court (WCC). Trial was held in early 2011. Ford and his wife testified, and numerous medical records were admitted into evidence. The WCC ruled in favor of Sentry as to each of the foregoing issues, and Ford appealed. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the WCC correctly determined that he failed to carry his burden of establishing causation with regard to his disc condition and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Ober Spear appealed s district court order dismissing his wrongful discharge complaint. Spear had worked as a Montana Highway Patrol (MHP) trooper since 1958. He applied for permanent disability treatment in 1962. MHP placed Spear on sick leave. The Retirement Board held hearings and determined that Spear did not have a permanent disability due in part to Spear's admission that he had gone hunting, bowling and water skiing following his injuries. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board's decision. Spear then made a series of unsuccessful attempts to receive further benefits. Notably in 2000, Spear contacted MHP concerning additional sick leave benefits; the attorney general's (AG) office returned the call to clarify Spear's "misconception" that he still worked for MHP. The AG's office informed Spear that his employment with MHP ended in 1962 when he stopped reporting for duty. MHP's chief administrator wrote to the Montana Public Employees Retirement Administration in 2009 in response to the Administration's receipt of inquiries from Spear regarding his retirement. The administrator noted that Spear had not been an MHP employee since 1982. Spear filed a "wrongful dismissal" claim against MHP and the State in 2010, alleging that MHP effectively discharged him from his job. The district court dismissed Spear's case, determining Spear's employment had been "severed" in 1962. Even if he had a viable claim, the court determined Spear was put on notice that he was no longer considered an employee in 2000. The case was dismissed for being outside the one-year statute of limitations. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the district court properly dismissed Spear's case and affirmed.

Plaintiff-Appellant Shaune Kuszmaul appealed a district court order that granted summary judgment to Sterling Life Insurance Company (Sterling) on her wrongful discharge claim. Plaintiff worked as an outside sales agent for a subsidiary of Sterling since 2000. In October 2009, Plaintiff drafted a marketing letter promoting Sterling products. She mailed out approximately 1,000 copies of the letter to current and potential customers. Plaintiff did not obtain approval from anyone at Sterling before sending the letter, nor did she clear it with the Montana Department of Insurance (DOI) or any other regulatory agency. A relative of one of the recipients of the letter anonymously notified Sterling by mail that the letter might violate the Policy. The writer sent a copy of its complaint to the Sterling Life Corporate Compliance Office, the Montana DOI, and the CMS Regional Office, exposing Sterling to possible state and federal sanctions. This prompted Sterling to begin an internal investigation. While being investigated, Plaintiff acknowledged that her marketing letter was not in conformance with company policy, but denied doing anything intentionally wrong. She was terminated for violating company policy with regard to the unapproved marketing materials. Upon review of the district court record, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding no error in the court's decision to grant the insurance company summary judgment.

Plaintiff Arthur Rooney appealed a district court's order in favor of Defendant City of Cut Bank in his wrongful termination suit. Plaintiff appealed the court's decision that his termination did not violate Montana's Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act (WDEA). The City cross-appealed the District Court's earlier interlocutory order denying the City's motion to dismiss the WDEA claim. The Supreme Court reversed an interlocutory ruling, and did not reach the issues raised by Plaintiff. The Court affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of the City on this alternative ground. The Supreme Court concluded Plaintiff was afforded "full and fair adjudication of his claims in the proceedings before the Police Commission." When the City moved for relief from the District Court's order ruling that the WDEA claim was distinct from the appeal of the Police Commission decision, it was correct that issue preclusion applied.

The United States District Court for the District of Montana, Helena Division certified the following question to this Court: "Is obesity that is not the symptom of a physiological condition a 'physical or mental impairment' as it is used in Montana Code Annotated 49-2-101(19)(a)?" Respondent Eric Feit filed an administrative complaint with the Montana Department of Labor and Industry (Department) alleging that Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) illegally discriminated against him because of perceived disability. A hearing officer for the Department entered summary disposition in favor of Respondent, concluding that "BNSF engaged in and is liable for a discriminatory refusal to hire Feit because it regarded him as disabled" and awarded damages for lost wages and benefits, prejudgment interest, and emotional distress. BNSF filed an unsuccessful appeal with the Montana Human Rights Commission, which was then presented to the U.S. District Court. Upon review, the Montana Supreme Court accepted the certified question and answered it "yes."

Respondent-Appellant Chad Cringle appealed a district court order that remanded his case to the Montana Human Rights Commission for further proceedings in his discrimination complaint against Petitioner-Appellee BNSF Railway Company (BNSF). The issue on appeal was whether BNSF demonstrated sufficient grounds to excuse its noncompliance with a fourteen-day filing deadline. In 2008, Respondent filed a complaint with the Montana Department of Labor and Industry charging that BNSF had illegally discriminated against him in employment. Following proceedings on the issues of damages and affirmative relief, the hearing officer issued a final decision in Respondent's favor. That same day, the hearing officer issued notice of his decision by mail to the parties. BNSF received the decision the next day. A legal secretary discovered the decision under papers on her desk nineteen days after it was received. By that time, the decision had become final and "not appealable." BNSF filed a notice of appeal, asking for an extension of time in which to file its notice of appeal. Respondent objected to the request. The Commission denied BNSF's appeal. BNSF sought judicial review; The Commission and Respondent filed separate motions to dismiss BNSF's petition. BNSF then appealed the district court's dismissal of its petition, arguing that the district court erred in interpreting the fourteen-day filing deadline as "jurisdictional" and asked the Supreme Court to hold that the Commission had authority to extend the deadline to file the appeal. The case came before the Supreme Court a second time, the last issue to decide was whether BNSF had shown good cause for its untimely filing. Upon review, the Court concluded BNSF failed to justify relief from the deadline.