Opinion ID: 889247
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statutory interpretation of the 2007 MHRA.

Text: ¶ 33 The rules of statutory construction are well-settled. Section 1-2-101, MCA, commands that: In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not insert what has been omitted or to omit what has been inserted. Where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all. Additionally, the intention of the legislature is to be pursued if possible, § 1-2-102, MCA, and no further interpretation is required when the plain language of the statute is clear and unambiguous. Miller v. Eighteenth Jud. Dist. Ct., 2007 MT 149, ¶ 38, 337 Mont. 488, 162 P.3d 121 (citations omitted). ¶ 34 The plain language of §§ 49-2-504,-511, and-512, MCA (2007), is clear and unambiguous. [3] Section 49-2-504(7)(b)(ii), MCA, clearly states that once the HRB dismisses a complaint, the charging party may file a complaint in district court, so long as the party complies with § 49-2-511, MCA, and files the complaint within ninety days of the HRB's notice of dismissal. Additionally, § 49-2-511(3)(a), MCA, clarifies that, at this point, the district court must hold a trial on the merits of the case and may provide the relief outlined in § 49-2-506, MCA, in addition to awarding attorney fees and costs. This plain reading of the statutes is harmonious with the 2007 Legislature's intent to clarify the procedural pathway a discrimination case takes through the HRB process. ¶ 35 Given the 2007 substantive revisions to the MHRA, the gravamen analysis upon which we relied commencing with Harrison v. Chance, 244 Mont. 215, 797 P.2d 200 (1990), and through our decisions in Saucier, Vettel-Becker, and Edwards is, mercifully, no longer necessary when analyzing the propriety of filing suit in district court following notice of dismissal by the HRB. We caution their holdings may still be viable, however, in those situations where the plaintiff files a claim sounding in discrimination in the district court without first filing a claim before the HRB and receiving a notice of dismissal. See Vettel-Becker, ¶ 37; Edwards, ¶ 75. If a claim sounding in discrimination is brought to the district court absent an accompanying notice of dismissal from the HRB, it could be barred by § 49-2-512(1), MCA (2007).