Kershaw v. Montana Department of Transportation
2011 MT 170
Mont.2011Background
- Kershaw was an MDT employee from 1984 until February 2007, and was demoted after a 2006 performance investigation; he resigned in February 2007 after being reassigned to a lower position and given a grievance form and BOPA rules.
- Kershaw did not file a BOPA grievance; in April 2008 he filed a district court complaint with counts for wrongful discharge under WDEA (constructive discharge and violation of public policy) and IIED, and a third count for IIED.
- MDT moved for partial summary judgment on Count I, arguing WDEA did not apply because the discharge was subject to the BOPA grievance procedure; the district court granted partial summary judgment in January 2009, precluding the WDEA claim and holding BOPA did not violate equal protection.
- In April 2009 Kershaw moved to amend to add negligence, libel/slander, and breach of implied covenant claims; May 2009 amendment motion was denied; a scheduling order set an amendment deadline for November 27, 2009.
- February 2010 MDT moved for summary judgment on Count III; June 2010 the district court granted it, ruling the IIED claim was precluded by failure to pursue the BOPA procedure; Kershaw appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preclusion under WDEA violated equal protection or jury trial rights | Kershaw contends MDT’s BOPA-exemption creates unequal treatment and warrants a jury trial | MDT argues BOPA procedure is a separate remedy and excludes WDEA without violating equal protection or constitutional rights | No equal protection violation; BOPA-based preclusion constitutional |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion denying leave to amend | Kershaw asserts the amendment should be allowed to add new claims given posture and potential jury-trial issues | MDT contends amendments were untimely, futile, and premised on claims barred by grievance procedure | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 2000 MT 321 (Mont. 2000) (equal protection analysis on statutory limitations)
- Rausch v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 2005 MT 140 (Mont. 2005) (not similarly situated claims for disability benefits)
- Kneeland v. Luzenac Am., Inc., 1998 MT 136 (Mont. 1998) (WDEA context and remedies; prima facie constitutionality)
- Beasley v. Semitool, Inc., 258 Mont. 258, 853 P.2d 84 (Mont. 1993) (WDEA framework and exclusive remedy implications)
- Arthur v. Pierre Ltd., 2004 MT 303 (Mont. 2004) (Human Rights Act as exclusive remedy for discrimination-related claims)