DA 12-0384

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2013 MT 64N

IN THE MATTER OF THE WAGE CLAIM OF

CHARLOTTE C. EASON, Claimant.

M. DAVIDENE TAIT d/b/a TRIPLE CROWN

MOTOR INN,

 Petitioner and Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF MONTANA, COMMISSIONER OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, 

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS DIVISION,

 Respondent and Appellee.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,

In and For the County of Cascade, Cause No. DDV-09-921

Honorable Dirk M. Sandefur, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Mary Davidene Tait (Self-Represented), Great Falls, Montana

For Appellee Eason:

Joseph Hardgrave, D. Michael Eakin, Montana Legal Services

Association, Billings, Montana

For Appellee Department of Labor and Industry:

Joseph Nevin, Special Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: January 16, 2013

 Decided: March 12, 2013

March 12 2013
2

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk
3

Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating 

Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not 

serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this 

Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana 

Reports. 

¶2 Mary Davidene Tait (Tait) appeals from the order entered in this matter by the 

Eighth Judicial District Court on April 27, 2012. The District Court affirmed the Hearing 

Officer’s dismissal of Tait’s administrative appeal of a wage claim determination entered 

against her by the Wage and Hour Unit of the Department of Labor. The wage claim 

determination was entered in favor of Appellee Charlotte C. Eason (Eason). Eason and 

the Department of Labor (Department) have filed briefs in opposition to Tait’s appeal.

¶3 Eason filed a claim for wages with the Department in December 2008, naming 

Tait as her employer. Eason was employed as a housekeeper and worked at the Triple 

Crown Motor Inn in Great Falls. The Department’s Wage and Hour Unit sent a letter to 

Tait requesting a response to the claim. Tait requested additional time to respond, which 

was granted. On January 2, 2009, the Wage and Hour Unit, noting that Tait had failed to 

respond by the extended deadline, issued a Determination finding that Tait owed Eason 

$869.85 in wages and a penalty in the amount of $956.84. The Determination notified 

the parties of their appeal rights.

¶4 On January 26, 2009, a default order was issued stating that neither party had 

appealed from the Determination. Tait contested the default order, and it was set aside by 
4

the Department. Additional information was received from both parties. The Wage and 

Hour Unit then issued a Redetermination on March 19, 2009, finding that Tait owed 

Eason the adjusted amounts of $741.13 in wages and $430.24 in penalties. Tait appealed 

the Redetermination and the case was transferred from the Wage and Hour Unit to the 

Department’s Hearings Bureau. The appointed Hearing Officer conducted a scheduling 

conference with the parties, setting dates for submission of contentions, lists of witnesses

and exhibits, and stipulated facts; for a prehearing conference; and for an in-person 

hearing. The scheduling order stated that “[a] party’s failure to appear for any 

conference, and/or failure to obey orders issued by the Hearing Officer, may result in . . . 

dismissal of the appeal.”

¶5 Tait did not submit contentions or exhibit and witness lists. She was not available 

by telephone at the time scheduled for the pre-trial conference. A message was left with 

the hotel staff at Tait’s listed place of employment for Tait to contact the Hearings 

Bureau so that the conference could be reconvened. Tait did not contact the Hearings 

Bureau that day. She did not further advise the Hearings Bureau of her intentions. On 

August 7, 2009, the Hearing Officer issued an order dismissing Tait’s appeal and 

declaring that the Redetermination was final.

¶6 Tait filed a petition for judicial review before the District Court. After briefing by 

the parties, the District Court entered an order affirming the Hearing Officer’s dismissal 

of Tait’s administrative appeal. The District Court concluded that Tait had “made no 

showing by affidavit, citation to legal authority, or other legal or credible means that the 

agency findings of fact and conclusions of law underlying the 03-19-09 wage claim 
5

Redetermination or the subsequent MDOL Dismissal Order are erroneous as a matter of 

fact or law under the applicable standard of review for district court review of final 

agency decisions under § 2-4-702, MCA.” The District Court further held that Tait had 

failed to make any credible showing “that the interests of justice warrant excuse of her 

blatant failure to timely participate in and exhaust her administrative remedy for appeal 

of the 3-19-09 MDOL Redetermination.” Tait made an unsubstantiated claim that she 

was available for the pre-hearing conference but an error by the hotel’s front desk kept 

her from participating. The District Court reasoned that, even if this explanation was 

taken as true, it did not explain Tait’s further failure to participate. As to Tait’s argument 

that Eason’s actual employer was a non-party corporate entity, the District Court 

reasoned that Tait had failed to make a “factual showing . . . of new evidence discovered 

upon reasonable diligence to warrant reversal and remand or a supplementary evidentiary 

proceeding on judicial review.” 

¶7 On appeal from the District Court’s order, Tait asserts that she is only an 

employee of Triple Crown Inn and has no ownership interest. She insinuates that Triple 

Crown Inn is the party responsible for the wage claim, but further asserts that the 

ownership of Triple Crown Inn has been long disputed and that the real property has been 

foreclosed upon in other legal proceedings. She argues the case has been mooted because 

any corporate owner has ceased to exist. Tait states that she forwarded Eason’s wage 

claim to a principal or former principal of Triple Crown Inn and requested documentation 

to defend the claim, but none was provided to her, arguing “it was and is virtually 
6

impossible to mount a credible defense against Eason’s spurious claim without any 

records!” She also argues that the wage claim is fraudulent. 

¶8 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of 

our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for noncitable memorandum opinions. The 

District Court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and the legal issues 

are controlled by settled Montana law, which the District Court correctly interpreted. 

Tait’s arguments regarding the party properly responsible for the wage claim do not 

demonstrate error by the District Court in concluding that Tait had failed to pursue and 

exhaust the administrative remedies available to raise and prove these issues. 

¶9 Affirmed. 

/S/ JIM RICE

We Concur:

/S/ MIKE McGRATH

/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER

/S/ LAURIE McKINNON