No. 88-236
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
JUDITH A. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
-VS-
STATE OF MONTANA, ED ARGENRRIGHT,
Superintendent of Public Instruction,
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEAL FROM: The District Court of the First Judicial District,
In and for the County of Lewis & Clark,
The Honorable Leif B. Erickson, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Beda J. Lovitt, Office of Public Instruction, Helena,
Montana
John H. Maynard, Dept. of Administration, Helena,
Montana
Sam Haddon argued, Missoula, Montana
For Respondent :
W. William Leaphart argued, Helena, Montana
For Amicus Curiae:
Jeffrey T. Renz, American Civil Liberties Union,
Billings, Montana
Marshall Murray; Murray, Kaufman, Vidal, Gordon & Ogle,
- Montana Innkeepers Assoc., et al., Kalispell, Montana
cn
i'l;
Submitted: April 11, 1989
t ,
,- Clerk
b
Mr. Justice R. C. McDonough delivered the Opinion of the
Court.
This appeal from the First Judicial District, Lewis and
Clark County, concerns the liability of appellants the State
of Montana and Ed Argenbright for damages arising from the
alleged wrongful discharge of respondent Johnson. Johnson
has alleged common-law and statutory wrongful discharge
claims against appellants, and has also requested that the
District Court declare that portions of the Montana Wrongful
Discharge Act, S 39-2-901 to -913, MCA, (Act)
unconstitutionally limit Johnson's fundamental right to full
legal redress.
Johnson moved for summary judgment on the requested
declaratory relief. She argued specifically that
classifications created under the Act violated equal
protection guarantees under Article 11, S 4, by denying her,
as a member of a class of wrongful discharge claimants, her
fundamental right to full legal redress. Pursuant to the
motion, the District Court declared the Act unconstitutional
citing White v. State (1983), 203 Mont. 363, 661 P.2d 1271;
Pfost v. State (1986), 219 Mont. 206, 713 P.2d 495. The
District Court reasoned that White and Pfost mandate that
the State demonstrate a compelling state interest justifying
such classifications because Article 11, S 16, guarantees a
fundamental right to full legal redress. The District Court
went on to conclude that the State had failed to make the
required showing, and the lower court then declared the Act
unconstitutional. This is the only issue which has been
adjudicated in the lower court. Appellants contend that
White and Pfost should be overruled.
Our decision handed down recently in Meech v. Hillhaven
West, Inc. (Mont. 1988), No. 88-410, filed June 29, 1989,
o v e r r u l e s White and Pfost, relative t o Article 11, S 16.
Specifically, Meech h o l d s that Article 11, S 16, does n o t
guarantee a fundamental right to a particular cause of
action, and that therefore the legislature may alter
common-law c a u s e s o f a c t i o n , remedies, and r e d r e s s , w i t h o u t
demonstrating that a compelling state interest justifies
classifications created by such modifications. Meech
controls t h i s case. T h e r e f o r e , t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t must be r e v e r s e d .
O t h e r i s s u e s have been b r i e f e d on a p p e a l by Johnson and
Argenbright. These issues have n o t been ruled on by the
District Court. Therefore, they a r e presented prematurely
before t h i s Court, and c a n n o t be p r o p e r l y reviewed a t t h i s
time. See V e l t e v . A l l s t a t e I n s . Co. ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 8 1 Mont. 300,
593 P.2d 454. W r e v e r s e and remand f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s
e
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Meech.
Justice /
W Concur:
e