Mashek v. Department of Public Health & Human Services, 369 P.3d 348

Plaintiffs are Pay Band 6 Compliance Specialists in the Department of Public Health and Human Services (majority of that class) and members of MEA-MFT Local 4573; collective bargaining agreements governed wages for 2007–2013.
In May 2011 Plaintiffs sued alleging their pay was not "internally equitable" with other Pay Band 6 Compliance Specialists across State agencies in violation of § 2-18-301(4), MCA.
District Court initially certified a class but dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; Plaintiffs then filed a grievance with the Board of Personnel Appeals (BOPA).
A Hearing Officer found Plaintiffs entitled to damages for lack of internal equity; BOPA rejected that recommendation, holding internal equity is a factor for collective bargaining and not an independent right, and dismissed the grievance.
The District Court vacated BOPA’s Final Order and reinstated the Hearing Officer; the Department appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reversed the District Court, reinstated BOPA’s Final Order, and held internal equity is not a stand-alone right that preempts collective bargaining.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Broadband Pay Plan factor “internal equity” in § 2-18-301(4), MCA, creates a stand‑alone, enforceable right that preempts collective bargaining	Plaintiffs: internal equity is an independent statutory right entitling them to equitable pay regardless of collective bargaining outcomes	Department: internal equity is one factor to be weighed in administering pay and is implemented through the collective bargaining process, not an independent remedy	Court held internal equity is a factor to be considered in administering pay and within the collective bargaining framework, not a stand‑alone right; reversed District Court and reinstated BOPA

MC, Inc. v. Cascade City-County Bd. of Health, 378 Mont. 267, 343 P.3d 1208 (2015) (statutory construction must consider text, context, structure, and purpose)
State Pers. Div. v. Dep’t of Public Health and Human Servs., 308 Mont. 365, 43 P.3d 305 (2002) (agency interpretations of law reviewed for correctness)
Fellows v. Dep’t of Admin., 360 Mont. 167, 252 P.3d 196 (2011) (§ 2-18-301(4) requires pay set on basis of competency, internal equity, competitiveness; does not mandate equal pay)
Wild v. Fregein Constr., 315 Mont. 425, 68 P.3d 855 (2003) (harmonize statutes relating to same subject to give effect to each)