Opinion ID: 761503
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Montana Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act

Text: 21 Under the WDEA, an employee may assert a cause of action against a former employer where the employee's discharge was not for good cause and the employee had completed the employer's probationary period of employment. Mont.Code Ann. § 39-2-904(2). The WDEA further defines good cause as reasonable job-related grounds for dismissal based on a failure to satisfactorily perform job duties, disruption of the employer's operation, or other legitimate business reason. Id. § 39-2-903(5). 22 At the time of her discharge, Marcy was not a probationary employee, and the parties stipulated that Marcy was generally rated as an outstanding employee. Thus, this appeal involves only whether Delta terminated Marcy for [a] legitimate business reason. The WDEA, unfortunately, does not further define what constitutes a legitimate business reason. Recognizing the need to clarify this term, the Montana Supreme Court stated that a legitimate business reason is a reason that is neither false, whimsical, arbitrary or capricious, and it must have some logical relationship to the needs of the business. Buck v. Billings Montana Chevrolet, Inc., 248 Mont. 276, 811 P.2d 537, 540 (1991). 23 At the outset, we note that a plain reading of the WDEA does not require a plaintiff to demonstrate an employer's bad faith through the existence of a pretext. 1 The Montana Supreme Court has stated, [w]here the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, we look no further than to the plain meaning of the statute for its interpretation. State v. Long, 274 Mont. 228, 907 P.2d 945, 950 (1995). Thus, as a matter of statutory construction, we would agree with the district court that [t]he statute is clear on its face.... Pretext is not a part of the statute and should not be made so by judicial fiat. 2 24 A review of the WDEA's sparse legislative history also does not clearly indicate whether the Montana legislature intended to require discharged employees to demonstrate an employer's bad faith to state a valid claim under the WDEA. See Buck, 811 P.2d at 540. The rejection of a proposed amendment to the WDEA, however, provides support for the reading that the Montana legislature did not intend for the WDEA to have such a requirement. In an early draft of the WDEA, the Montana Senate Judiciary Committee proposed adding the following sentence to the definition of good cause:  'Good cause' means a fair and honest cause or reason regulated by good faith on the part of the employer in his decision to terminate an employee. Managerial discretion must be taken into consideration by the trier of fact in applying the 'good cause' standard. Hearings on H.B. 241 Before the Montana Senate 1995 Legislature Judiciary Comm., Exhibit 8 at 1, 50th Legislature Regular Session (1987) (emphasis added). The Committee explained that with this language, the employer's interest in management discretion would be protected by allowing business to make employment decisions for business reasons. Id., Exhibit 7, at 2-3. This language was never adopted as the final version of the WDEA. The rejection of this amendment supports the conclusion that the Montana state legislature was unwilling to allow employers to escape liability by virtue of acting in good faith. 25