Bird v. Cascade County
2016 MT 345
| Mont. | 2016Background
- Stacey Bird served ~4 years as Cascade County Human Resources Director, supervising four employees and managing HR functions and a $350,000 budget; she had an unfinished Policy & Procedures Manual.
- Board raised concerns about Bird’s transparency, preferential hiring, policy alignment, and collaboration in 2010; meetings followed.
- In Oct. 2012 Bird helped organize department heads to request market/merit adjustments; the group took a “no confidence” vote in two commissioners and two department heads complained about leaks of confidential information.
- Bird was placed on administrative leave Oct. 26, 2012 pending investigation into alleged misuse of public time/resources for political purposes, disclosure of confidential employee information, use of confidential information for personal economic benefit, mismanagement, and policy implementation failures; she responded and denied allegations.
- Two commissioners voted to terminate Bird Nov. 27, 2012; Bird sued under Montana’s Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act claiming termination without good cause; the district court granted summary judgment for the County finding Bird a managerial employee and that the County showed good cause.
- Montana Supreme Court affirmed: Bird was a sensitive managerial employee; County presented legitimate business reasons for termination and Bird failed to present material, substantial evidence of pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bird was a managerial employee entitled to greater employer deference | Bird: title alone insufficient; supervised few employees and limited budget; closely supervised by Board and County Attorney | County: Bird ran HR operations, handled hiring/discipline, collective bargaining, benefits, payroll, investigations—entrusted with confidential matters and broad discretion | Held: Bird occupied a sensitive managerial position; County entitled to greater deference |
| Whether County had "good cause" to terminate under the Wrongful Discharge Act | Bird: disputes the truth of allegations, no prior disciplinary history, one commissioner voted against termination, other signatories were not disciplined—creates factual disputes and possible pretext | County: investigation interviews and documentary evidence substantiate allegations (misuse of resources, disclosure, mismanagement, insubordination); reasons are legitimate business needs | Held: County presented undisputed evidence of legitimate business reasons; Bird failed to present material and substantial evidence of pretext; summary judgment proper |
| Whether Bird raised genuine issues of material fact to avoid summary judgment | Bird: argues factual disputes and credibility issues (he said/she said), reliance on Moe decision where employee’s exhaustive rebuttal prevented summary judgment | County: Bird’s responses are largely conclusory; documentary and testimonial evidence corroborate allegations; Moe is distinguishable | Held: Court distinguished Moe and found Bird’s rebuttals insufficient to create triable issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Moe v. Butte-Silver Bow Cnty., 383 Mont. 297, 371 P.3d 415 (Mont. 2016) (summary judgment inappropriate where employee presented exhaustive, material rebuttals to employer’s investigative report)
- Becker v. Rosebud Operating Servs., 345 Mont. 368, 191 P.3d 435 (Mont. 2008) (employee must show employer’s stated reason is not good cause or is pretextual)
- Davis v. State, 381 Mont. 59, 357 P.3d 320 (Mont. 2015) (legitimate business reason must not be false, whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious)
- Sullivan v. Cont’l Constr. of Mont., LLC, 370 Mont. 8, 299 P.3d 832 (Mont. 2013) (employers have broad discretion with managerial employees; courts should avoid day-to-day interference)
- Baumgart v. State, 376 Mont. 1, 332 P.3d 225 (Mont. 2014) (factors to identify managerial status and deference to employer decisions regarding managerial employees)
- McConkey v. Flathead Elec. Coop., 330 Mont. 48, 125 P.3d 1121 (Mont. 2005) (summary judgment standards; opposing party must present material and substantial evidence to raise genuine issues)
- Buck v. Billings Mont. Chevrolet, 248 Mont. 276, 811 P.2d 537 (Mont. 1991) (managers receive broadest discretion in employment decisions)
- Ternes v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 361 Mont. 129, 257 P.3d 352 (Mont. 2011) (mere disagreement about interpretation of facts does not create genuine issue of material fact)