JOHNSON v STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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: cn - Jeffrey T. Renz, American Civil Liberties Union, Billings, Montana Marshall Murray; Murray, Kaufman, Vidal, Gordon & Ogle, Montana Innkeepers Assoc., et al., Kalispell, Montana i'l; Submitted: April 11, 1989 t b , ,- Clerk 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 S 39-2-901 to -913, MCA, (Act) Discharge 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; The Pfost v. State (1986), 219 Mont. 206, 713 P.2d 495. 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, Specifically, guarantee fundamental action, a and that that classifications right therefore common-law c a u s e s o f demonstrating 11, S to a the compelling created controls t h i s case. by legislature 16. does n o t cause may of alter and r e d r e s s , w i t h o u t state such 16, particular a c t i o n , remedies, a 11, S t o Article that Article Meech h o l d s relative interest justifies modifications. Meech 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. District These Court. Therefore, before t h i s Court, time. issues have n o t been they a r e presented 454. on by the prematurely and c a n n o t be p r o p e r l y reviewed a t t h i s See V e l t e v . A l l s t a t e I n s . Co. 593 P.2d ruled ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 8 1 Mont. 300, 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 <A Chief J u s t i c e Justices / Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy, dissenting: For all of the reasons expressed in my dissent in Meech v. Hillhaven West, Inc. (Mont. 1988), number 88-410, filed June 21, 1989, I emphatically dissent from this decision. / i '. / Justice ,/ Mr. ~ u s t i c e~ i l l i a mE. Hunt, Sr., dissenting: 1 concur in the foregoing dissent of ~ u s t i c e Sheehy. Justice
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
