Petaja v. Montana Public Employees' Ass'n
2016 MT 143
| Mont. | 2016Background
- Petaja, a union member represented by MPEA, was terminated by Lewis and Clark County; she alleged age discrimination and pursued contractual grievance procedures under the CBA.
- Petaja requested MPEA file grievances (Step 1 and Step 2); MPEA refused to file Step 2, refused to meet, failed to notify Petaja that it would not pursue the grievance, and signed a settlement with the County on Petaja’s behalf without her knowledge.
- MPEA’s counsel failed to comply with discovery and the court’s order, causing requests for admission to be deemed admitted against MPEA at trial.
- Petaja filed administrative claims (HRB and BOPA) that were dismissed; she then sued the County (discrimination) and MPEA (breach of the duty of fair representation). The jury found for the County on discrimination but awarded Petaja $100,000 against MPEA for breach of duty of fair representation.
- Petaja sought $100,975 in attorney fees; the district court denied fees, concluding it had no legal authority to award them. MPEA appealed; Petaja cross-appealed the fee denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Substantial evidence for DFR breach? | MPEA ignored and mishandled Petaja’s grievance, signed settlement without consent, and failed to notify/exhaust remedies. | MPEA argued its conduct was reasonable and contested the facts. | Yes — deemed admissions and evidence supported jury finding of breach. |
| 2. Verdict inconsistent with instructions/law? | (Petaja) Jury instructions were proper; damages reflect MPEA’s violation. | MPEA argued inconsistency because employer found not at fault and union cannot be liable if employer did nothing; also union liability limited to increased damages. | No inconsistency — jury could find employer liable on merits but time-barred; court noted parties did not object to damages instruction limiting recovery to harm from MPEA. |
| 3. Res judicata bar? | (Petaja) BOPA decisions do not preclude district claim; defense not properly pursued. | MPEA asserted claim preclusion based on BOPA decisions. | Defense waived/forfeited — MPEA failed to press the defense at trial; court declined to reach res judicata on appeal. |
| 4. Authority to award attorney fees? | Petaja argued equitable or statutory grounds allowed fees. | MPEA effectively admitted fees but no statutory/contractual basis; American Rule applies. | No — no statutory/contractual basis or equitable exception justified fees; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Magart v. Shank, 302 Mont. 151, 13 P.3d 390 (standard for reviewing jury verdicts and substantial evidence)
- Upky v. Marshall Mountain, LLC, 342 Mont. 273, 180 P.3d 651 (deference to jury on credibility and conflicting evidence)
- Jim's Excavating Serv. v. HKM Assocs., 265 Mont. 494, 878 P.2d 248 (limitations on judicial speculation about jury findings)
- Buxbaum (Trustees of Ind. Univ. v. Buxbaum), 315 Mont. 210, 69 P.3d 663 (American Rule and narrow equitable exceptions for attorneys’ fees)
- Jacobsen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 351 Mont. 464, 215 P.3d 649 (caution about expanding equitable exceptions to fee awards)
- Nitzel v. Wickman, 283 Mont. 304, 940 P.2d 451 (failure to plead affirmative defenses results in waiver)
- Seltzer v. Morton, 336 Mont. 225, 154 P.3d 561 (unchallenged jury instructions become law of the case)