Jones v. All Star Painting Inc., 415 P.3d 986

Danielle Jones worked ~6 weeks in summer 2014 for All Star Painting; she alleged its owner, Norman Hodges, sexually harassed her and created a hostile work environment, then quit.
Jones filed a MHRA complaint with the Human Rights Bureau (HRB); a contested hearing was held in Nov. 2015 where Jones, Hodges, and multiple witnesses testified.
The Hearing Officer credited homeowners and Hodges over Jones, treated much of Jones’s witnesses’ testimony as either hearsay or only relevant to character for truthfulness, and entered judgment for All Star.
The Human Rights Commission affirmed; Jones sought judicial review in District Court, which affirmed the agency and dismissed Hodges as a party; All Star’s fee motion was denied.
On appeal to the Montana Supreme Court, Jones challenged the agency’s evidentiary analysis (failure to treat certain testimony as admissible corroboration) and the District Court’s dismissal of Hodges; Court limited relief accordingly.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Hearing Officer improperly ignored admissible corroborating testimony when finding Jones failed to make a prima facie case	Jones: the testimony of family/roommate about her demeanor at the time was admissible personal observation and corroborative, so her uncorroborated testimony claim was legally erroneous	All Star: much of that testimony was inadmissible hearsay or only relevant to character; Hearing Officer properly limited consideration	Court: Reversed agency and remanded — the Hearing Officer either misapplied hearsay rules or misapprehended effect of admissible corroborative evidence; Jones’s own testimony could establish a prima facie case and the agency must explain weight given to corroboration on remand
Whether Hodges was properly joined as a respondent	Jones: Hodges was an appropriate respondent/agent of employer and amendments to caption were allowed under HRB procedures	All Star: Hodges never properly joined under M. R. Civ. P. 20; caption amendment was insufficient	Court: Affirmed dismissal of Hodges — plaintiff never moved to amend charging documents to assert relief against Hodges as required, so joinder was improper

Stringer-Altmaier v. Haffner, 332 Mont. 293, 138 P.3d 419 (Mont. 2006) (hostile-work-environment sexual harassment under MHRA)
Campbell v. Garden City Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 322 Mont. 434, 97 P.3d 546 (Mont. 2004) (prima facie proof approaches under MHRA)
In re Marriage of Kovash, 270 Mont. 517, 893 P.2d 860 (Mont. 1995) (single witness testimony can suffice to prove fact)
Goodover v. Lindey’s, Inc., 255 Mont. 430, 843 P.2d 765 (Mont. 1992) (hearsay defined as evidence not founded on witness’s personal knowledge)
Fandrich v. Capital Ford Lincoln Mercury, 272 Mont. 425, 901 P.2d 112 (Mont. 1995) (treatment of individual-agent liability under MHRA)