Johnson v. State
776 P.2d 1221
Mont.
1989
Check Treatment

JUDITH A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STATE OF MONTANA, Ed Argenbright, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 88-236.

Supreme Court of Montana

Submitted April 11, 1989. Decided July 19, 1989.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 11, 1989.

776 P.2d 1221

215

Beda J. Lovitt, Office of Public Instruction, John H. Maynard, Dept, of Admin., Helena, Sam Haddon argued, Missoula, for defendants and appellants.

W. William Leaphart argued, Helena, for plaintiff and respondent.

Jeffrey T. Renz, American Civil Liberties Union, Billings, Marshall Murray, Murray, Kaufman, Vidal, Gordon & Ogle, Montana Innkeepers Assoc., et al., Kalispell, for amicus curiae.

MR. JUSTICE McDONOUGH delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This appeal from the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County, concerns the liability of appellants the State of Montana and Ed Argenbright for damages arising from the alleged wrongful discharge of respondent Johnson. Johnson has alleged common-law and statutory wrongful discharge claims against appellants, and has also requested that the District Court declare that portions of the Montana Wrongful Discharge Act, §§ 39-2-901 to -913, MCA, (Act) unconstitutionally limit Johnson‘s fundamental right to full legal redress.

Johnson moved for summary judgment on the requested declaratory relief. She argued specifically that classifications created under the Act violated equal protection guarantees under Article II, § 4, by denying her, as a member of a class of wrongful discharge claimants, her fundamental right to full legal redress. Pursuant to the motion, the District Court declared the Act unconstitutional citing

;
. The District Court reasoned that
and
mandate that the State demonstrate a compelling state interest justifying such classifications because Article II, § 16, guarantees a fundamental right to full legal redress. The District Court went on to conclude that the State had failed to make the required showing, and the lower court then declared the Act unconstitutional. This is the only issue which has been adjudicated in the lower court. Appellants contend that
and
should be overruled.

Our decision handed down recently in

, overrules
and
, relative to Article II, § 16. Specifically,
holds that Article II, § 16, does not guarantee a fundamental right to a particular cause of action, and that therefore the legislature may alter common-law causes of action, remedies, and redress, without demonstrating that a compelling state interest justifies classifications created by such modifications.
controls this case. Therefore, the decision of the District Court must be reversed. Other issues have been briefed on appeal by Johnson and Argenbright. These issues have not been ruled on by the District Court. Therefore, they are presented prematurely before this Court, and cannot be properly reviewed at this time. See
. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with
.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE and MR. JUSTICES HARRISON, GULBRANDSON and WEBER concur.

MR. JUSTICE SHEEHY, dissenting:

For all of the reasons expressed in my dissent in

, I emphatically dissent from this decision.

MR. JUSTICE HUNT concurs in the foregoing dissent.