Speer v. United Blood Services, 1:11-cv-00054

Daniel Speer worked for UBS in Billings since 1988, eventually becoming a Lab Training Coordinator in 2008 with a raise and bonuses.
UBS designated the Billings location as a Center Needing Improvement in 2009 and planned a Reduction in Force (RIF).
Speer was terminated December 31, 2009, after his Lab Training Coordinator position was eliminated; he was in his mid‑fifties with over 20 years of service.
Speer had a May 2009 formal reprimand for multiple alleged SOP violations and took medical leave for anxiety/depression in 2009, receiving short‑term disability benefits.
UBS’s RIF decisions were made by William Henry; Speer’s position was unique in the region and not advertised, and no younger employees with similar issues were affected in the same way.
UBS hired a new lab technician while Speer was on leave and advertised for similar positions shortly after Speer’s termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MHRA discrimination prima facie shown	Speer argues age and disability discrimination in RIF	UBS claims legitimate, non‑discriminatory RIF reasons	Dispute on pretext exists; genuine issue of material fact remains
Whether UBS’s RIF as to Speer was legitimate good cause	Reasons were pretextual and Speer was replaced by younger, healthier staff	RIF based on identified criteria and workload justification	Pretext possible; issues of fact remain regarding good cause
Whether MHRA precludes WDEA claim	MHRA discrimination claim and WDEA claim may coexist when distinct	MHRA exclusivity precludes WDEA	MHRA does not preclude distinct wrongful discharge claim
Whether Speer’s wrongful discharge claim has genuine issues of material fact	RIF policy not followed; position not properly eliminated	RIF policy applied, with legitimate business rationale	Genuine issues of material fact exist regarding pretext and policy adherence

Heiat v. Eastern Montana College, 912 P.2d 787 (Mont. 1996) (prima facie framework for discrimination claims)
Reeves v. Dairy Queen, 953 P.2d 703 (Mont. 1998) (employer must provide legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)
Tonack v. Montana Bank of Billings, 854 P.2d 326 (Mont. 1993) (discovery of exclusivity of remedies; discrimination may coexist with WDEA)
Vettel-Becker v. Deaconess Medical Center of Billings, Inc., 177 P.3d 1034 (Mont. 2008) (pretext analysis for discrimination claims)
Johnson v. Costco Wholesale, 152 P.3d 727 (Mont. 2007) (balancing employer discretion against employee interests in discharge cases)
Kestell v. Heritage Health Care Corp., 858 P.2d 3 (Mont. 1993) (reasonableness of discharge decisions)
Arnold v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, 100 P.3d 137 (Mont. 2004) (pretext standard for discharge reasons)
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; evidence must negate essential elements)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden shifting on summary judgment)