415 P.3d 976
Mont.2018Background
- Michael Borges worked as a juvenile detention officer in Missoula County from 2006–2015 and was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder in April 2014 with severe fragrance hypersensitivity.
- Borges notified supervisors and HR in May 2014; HR agreed to explore a fragrance-free policy and assisted him with an ADA accommodation request.
- The County adopted an amended fragrance policy (banning perfumes/colognes for staff) on October 8, 2014; Borges attended an October 22 meeting where he complained the policy was inadequate and not consistently enforced.
- Borges filed an HRB complaint on October 31, 2014 alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, hostile work environment, and retaliation; HRB investigated and found no reasonable cause.
- Post-complaint events (policy-revision disputes, alleged refusal to provide respirator, withholding of performance evaluation, his placement on paid leave, and eventual resignation) were disclosed during district-court discovery but were not added to the HRB complaint.
- The District Court limited its review to pre-October 31, 2014 actions and granted summary judgment to the County; the Montana Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court could consider facts arising after Borges’s HRB complaint | Borges: new facts were part of the same continuing violation and the County withheld them from HRB; district court should consider them (transaction rule). | County: MHRA requires HRB adjudication of particulars; plaintiff failed to amend HRB complaint to include new facts. | Court: District court correctly excluded post-complaint facts because Borges failed to amend HRB complaint and MHRA limits court to HRB-adjudicated claims. |
| Whether County failed to engage in interactive dialogue | Borges: County obstructed or ended the interactive process; he raised this in district court. | County: engaged in good-faith communications, offered meetings, revised policy, and responded to incidents. | Court: Borges didn’t raise interactive-process claim before HRB, so it cannot be litigated in district court or on appeal. |
| Whether County failed to provide a reasonable accommodation | Borges: amended fragrance policy was inadequate and County refused other accommodations (e.g., respirator). | County: attempted reasonable accommodation (policy change, incident responses); no feasible policy could shield Borges from public/arrestee fragrances; respirator was never requested or medically prescribed. | Court: No genuine dispute—County made good-faith efforts and no reasonable accommodation existed that would have enabled Borges to perform essential functions. Summary judgment for County affirmed. |
| Whether alleged withholding of performance evaluation was unlawful retaliation | Borges: withholding evaluation was material adverse action showing retaliation. | County: withholding caused no material adverse employment effect and was done to avoid appearance of retaliation. | Court: Withholding was not a significant adverse act under MHRA/administrative rules; not material to retaliation claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc., 228 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2000) (describes employer–employee interactive process for accommodations)
- Humphrey v. Mem’l Hosps. Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (employer must attempt plausible reasonable accommodations)
- Griffith v. Butte Sch. Dist. No. 1, 358 Mont. 193 (Mont. 2010) (exhaustion of HRB administrative remedies required before district-court MHRA claims)
- Jones v. Mont. Univ. Sys., 337 Mont. 1 (Mont. 2007) (failure to exhaust MHRA administrative remedies bars district-court claim)
- McDonald v. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 351 Mont. 243 (Mont. 2009) (Montana law requires reasonable accommodations where they enable an employee to perform essential functions)