Blaine and Hill Co. v. Stricker
2017 MT 80
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Allen Longsoldier, an 18‑year‑old Native American with alcoholism, was arrested by Blaine County and held at Hill County Detention Center; he exhibited alcohol‑withdrawal symptoms while in custody and died of delirium tremens after being returned from the hospital.
- The Estate (Stricker) filed a Human Rights Bureau complaint alleging race and disability (alcoholism) discrimination against Blaine and Hill Counties; the Hearing Officer found no discrimination and issued a detailed adverse factual decision.
- The Human Rights Commission reviewed the record, concluded the Hearing Officer misapprehended evidence about failure to fill/administer prescriptions, modified two findings of fact, found disability discrimination, and remanded for relief; the Commission later awarded $1,350,000.
- The Counties sought judicial review in district court; Judge Sherlock reversed the Commission—finding procedural errors (wrong standard of review, ex parte communications, lack of record) and reinstated the Hearing Officer’s decision as the final agency decision.
- Judge Reynolds (succeeding Judge Sherlock) granted the Estate’s motion to alter or amend, concluding reinstating the hearing officer’s decision deprived the Estate of the Commission’s statutorily required review and remanded to the Commission; both orders were appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court affirmed Judge Sherlock, holding the Commission abused its discretion by modifying hearing‑officer factual findings without first determining they were unsupported by competent substantial evidence, and reversed Judge Reynolds’s remand to the Commission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission improperly modified the Hearing Officer’s factual findings | Estate: findings that there was no discriminatory animus were legal conclusions or incomplete, so Commission could review and correct them | Counties: Commission lacked authority to modify findings of fact absent specific determination that they were not supported by competent substantial evidence | Held: Commission applied wrong standard and abused discretion; modifications impermissible because it did not find the findings unsupported by competent substantial evidence |
| Whether reinstating the Hearing Officer’s decision as the final agency decision was an improper remedy | Estate: §49‑2‑505(5) requires the Commission to render the final agency decision; reinstatement short‑circuits statutorily required Commission review | Counties: district court may reinstate hearing officer’s decision where agency misapplies legal standards or engages in procedural error | Held: Reinstatement was permissible here; district court properly reviewed the record and no further meaningful review by Commission remained |
| Whether the Estate proved disability discrimination under Human Rights Act based on failure to fill/administer prescriptions | Estate: failure to fill/administer prescribed meds evidenced discriminatory indifference to disabled person (alcoholism) | Counties: inadequate medical care alone does not show treatment because of disability; no evidence prescriptions were withheld because of alcoholism | Held: Claim fails—record lacks evidence the Counties’ conduct was motivated by discriminatory animus toward alcoholism; Human Rights Act not proper remedy for negligent medical care |
| Whether procedural defects (no record, ex parte communications, wrong review standard) required reversal | Estate: Commission corrected hearing officer errors and remedied shortcomings | Counties: cumulative procedural errors prejudiced Counties’ rights and required reversal of Commission decision | Held: Procedural defects, including misapplied standard of review and ex parte contacts, warranted reversal of Commission’s final decision |
Key Cases Cited
- State Personnel Div. v. Child Support Investigators, 308 Mont. 365 (Mont. 2002) (agency may not modify hearing‑officer findings without reviewing complete record and stating particularized determination that findings lack competent substantial evidence)
- Schmidt v. Cook, 326 Mont. 202 (Mont. 2005) (MAPA standard of judicial review and requirement that courts not substitute their judgment for agency on factual weight)
- Moran v. Shotgun Willies, 270 Mont. 47 (Mont. 1994) (agency may reject hearing examiner findings only if not based on competent substantial evidence)
- Brackman v. Board of Nursing, 258 Mont. 200 (Mont. 1993) (district court may order agency to adopt hearing officer’s order when agency abuses discretion in rejecting findings)
- Benjamin v. Anderson, 327 Mont. 173 (Mont. 2005) (affirming reinstatement of hearing examiner’s award where agency’s reduction was arbitrary)
- Frasceli, Inc. v. State Dep’t of Revenue, 235 Mont. 152 (Mont. 1988) (distinguishing improper agency conduct where ex parte or extra‑record inspections undermine due process and require remand rather than direct reinstatement)