No. 88-236 IN THE SUPREME COURTOF THE STATEOF MONTANA

JUDITHA. JOHNSON, Plaintiffand Respondent,-VSSTATE OF MONTANA, ED ARGENRRIGHT, Superintendentof Public Instruction, DefendantsandAppellants.

APPEAL FROM: TheDistrict Court of the First JudicialDistrict, In and for the County of Lewis & Clark, The Honorable Leif B. Erickson, Judgepresiding. COUNSELOF RECORD: ForAppellant: Beda J. Lovitt,Office of Public Instruction, Helena, Montana John H. Maynard,Dept. ofAdministration, Helena, Montana SamHaddon argued,Missoula,Montana For Respondent: 

### W. William Leaphartargued, Helena,Montana ForAmicus Curiae: Jeffrey

### T. Renz,American CivilLiberties Union, Billings,Montana Marshall Murray; Murray, Kaufman, Vidal, Gordon & Ogle,

- Montana InnkeepersAssoc., 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 theMontana Wrongful Discharge Act, S 

### 39-2-901 to -913, MCA, (Act) unconstitutionally limit Johnson's fundamental right to full legalredress. 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 Courtmust 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 atthis time. See Velte v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1979), 181Mont. 300, 593 P.2d 454. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistentwithMeech.

We Concur: <A

Chief Justice Justice /

JusticesMr. Justice John C. Sheehy, dissenting:

For all of the reasons expressed inmy 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 ~usticeSheehy.

Justice