No. 88-236 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

JUDITH A. JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

-VSSTATE OF MONTANA, ED ARGENRRIGHT, 

Superintendent of Public Instruction, 

Defendants and Appellants. 

APPEAL FROM: The District Court of the First Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Lewis & Clark, 

The Honorable Leif B. Erickson, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Beda J. Lovitt, Office of Public Instruction, Helena, 

Montana 

John H. Maynard, Dept. of Administration, Helena, 

Montana 

Sam Haddon argued, Missoula, Montana 

For Respondent : 

W. William Leaphart argued, Helena, Montana 

For Amicus Curiae: 

Jeffrey T. Renz, American Civil Liberties Union, 

Billings, Montana 

Marshall Murray; Murray, Kaufman, Vidal, Gordon & Ogle, - Montana Innkeepers Assoc., et al., Kalispell, Montana 

cn 

i'l; 

Submitted: April 11, 1989 

,- t , Clerk b 
Mr. Justice R. C. 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, S 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 11, S 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 White v. State (1983), 203 Mont. 363, 661 P.2d 1271; 

Pfost v. State (1986), 219 Mont. 206, 713 P.2d 495. The 

District Court reasoned that White and Pfost mandate that 

the State demonstrate a compelling state interest justifying 

such classifications because Article 11, S 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 

White and Pfost should be overruled. 

Our decision handed down recently in Meech v. Hillhaven 

West, Inc. (Mont. 1988), No. 88-410, filed June 29, 1989, 
overrules White and Pfost, relative to Article 11, S 16. 

Specifically, Meech holds that Article 11, S 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. Meech 

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 Velte v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1979), 181 Mont. 300, 

593 P.2d 454. We reverse and remand for further proceedings 

consistent with Meech. 

We Concur: <A 

Chief Justice 

Justice / 

Justices 
Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy, dissenting: 

For all of the reasons expressed in my dissent in Meech 

v. Hillhaven West, Inc. (Mont. 1988), number 88-410, filed 

June 21, 1989, I emphatically dissent from this decision. /-i 

'.- 

Justice / , / 

Mr. ~ustice ~illiam E. Hunt, Sr., dissenting: 

1 concur in the foregoing dissent of ~ustice Sheehy. 

Justice