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

2,344 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 Harrison 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.
.
The Legislature clearly intended that the Act be the
exclusive remedy for discrimination claims. We adopted
this intent in Harrison and maintain it in the instant
case. To permit parties to delay filing with the HRC
until the HRC filing time ran out and then file their
claims directly in district court would, in a sense, gut
the Act. We reaffirm our decision that the HRC is the
exclusive remedv for Hash's discrimination claim.
(Emphasis supplied.)

Other Sections in This Document (227)

Full Text