Bruner v. Yellowstone County, 272 Mont. 261 (1995)

Citation: Bruner v. Yellowstone County, 272 Mont. 261 (1995)
Parent Document: Bruner v. Yellowstone County, 272 Mont. 261 (1995)
Jurisdiction: Montana (state)
Effective Date: 1995-08-03
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/883592/bruner-v-yellowstone-county/ ↗

Full Text

738 chars

Hash asserts that timely filing of a discrimination claim with the HRC is not a prerequisite to filing with the district court. We previously have resolved this issue against Hash’s position. In *267Harrison v. Chance (1990), 244 Mont. 215, 797 P.2d 200, we held that the Act provides the exclusive remedy for sexual discrimination claims. We did so on the basis that a 1987 legislative amendment made the Act the exclusive remedy for sexual discrimination. We held that the “statutory procedures for discrimination are exclusive remedies and cannot be bypassed.” Harrison, 797 P.2d at 203. Like the plaintiff in Harrison, Hash chose to file a discrimination claim in district court without first timely filing her complaint with the HRC.

Other Sections in This Document (227)

Full Text