Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Showing 21–40 of 81 results

§ 2-9-111

Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008) Montana state

claim that Shoemaker and the City had retaliated against her during the February 14

§ 27-1-804

Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008) Montana state

suit for that conduct and Denke’s retaliation claim, therefore, must be dismissed. The

§ 27-1-804

Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008) Montana state

conduct of the council meeting actually amounted to unlawful retaliation is not before us,

§ 27-1-804

Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008) Montana state

neither should retaliation be so considered.” In addition, relying in large part on Bechard

§ 27-1-804

Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008) Montana state

payments from the City to settle her sexual harassment and retaliation claims against the

§ 2-9-305

Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008) Montana state

Shoemaker’s illegal retaliation against Denke arising out of his January 2000 letters. We

§ 2-9-111

Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008) Montana state

¶34 In short, the hearing examiner ruled that the City “did not illegally retaliate against

§ 27-1-804

Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008) Montana state

1. Is the City immune from suit on Denke’s retaliation claim against it?

§ 27-1-804

Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008) Montana state

retaliated against her in the way it “regulated” the February 14 council meeting. Denke’s

Section 2-9-111

Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008) Montana state

administrative decisions-- in direct opposition to their non-retaliation agreement--to use a

Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008)

Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008) Montana state

...In so holding, we caution that failing to impose such restrictions does not necessarily constitute unlawful retaliation. That question depends on the laws defining and prohibiting unlawful retaliation; and with respect to the February 14 council meeting, the *340hearing examiner...

§ 2-9-114

Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008) Montana state

claim of unlawful retaliation based on the City’s conduct of the discussion of the Denke-

§ 27-1-804

Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008) Montana state

hearing examiner must complete the retaliation analysis in the first instance on remand. III. The Immunity Issue

§ 2-9-114

Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008) Montana state

§ 2-9-114, MCA, as a defense to Denke’s claim of unlawful retaliation based on the

§ 2-9-305

Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008) Montana state

MCA, as a defense to Denke’s claim of unlawful retaliation based on the City’s conduct

Section 2-9-111

Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008) Montana state

to retaliate against Denke as a result of her decision to file the HRC complaint.

§ 2-9-111

Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008) Montana state

right to free speech on one hand and the right to be free from illegal retaliation on the