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

968 chars

In Retherford v. AT&T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc. (Utah 1992), 844 P.2d 949, the plaintiff alleged, among other claims, that AT&T negligently employed several employees who harassed her. The court analyzed whether Utah’s Anti-Discriminatory Act (UADA) provided the exclusive remedy for her claims. The court adopted the indispensable element test as the analytical model to determine whether a statutory cause of action forecloses a common law remedy. Retherford, 844 P.2d at 963. Applying the test, the court first identified the injury that the statute was designed to address. Retherford, 844 P.2d at 965. Second, the court examined the elements of the plaintiff’s tort claims to determine whether any element of the claim was a necessary element of the statutory cause of action. Retherford, 844 P.2d at 965. That court concluded that the UADA addressed employment discrimination against members of specified protected groups. The court found that:

Other Sections in This Document (227)

Full Text