Opinion ID: 887772
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Montana Constitution

Text: ¶ 16 Dupuis alleges that the Board's decision to continue using Chiefs and Maidens violates Article X, Section 1(2) and Article II, Section 4 of the Montana Constitution. Article X, Section 1(2) recognizes the distinct and unique cultural heritage of the American Indians and is committed in its educational goals to the preservation of their cultural integrity. Article II, Section 4, the individual dignity clause, provides, in part, that [t]he dignity of the human being is inviolable. Dupuis asserts that these constitutional provisions create privately enforceable rights and that the District's use of offensive and degrading mascots violates these rights. She further asserts that these provisions prohibit a school district from choosing a school mascot, team name, or team symbol that the District knows to violate the dignity and cultural traditions of the Tribal people on the reservation. The District argues that the Montana Human Rights Commission provides the proper forum for Dupuis to vindicate her claims. We agree. ¶ 17 The Montana Human Rights Act (MHRA) provides, in part, that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for an educational institution: (1) to exclude, expel, limit, or otherwise discriminate against an individual . . . enrolled as a student in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the institution because of race, creed, religion, sex, marital status, color, age, physical disability, or national origin or because of mental disability. . . . Section 49-2-307, MCA. The MHRA establishes the exclusive remedy for conduct violating this provision. Section 49-2-509(7). An aggrieved party therefore first must file a discrimination claim with the Montana Human Rights Commission before bringing an action in District Court. Romero v. J & J Tire, 238 Mont. 146, 150, 777 P.2d 292, 295. ¶ 18 Dupuis's allegations of discrimination and violations of the individual dignity clause first must be brought before the Montana Human Rights Commission. Section 49-2-509(7), MCA. Dupuis's failure to exhaust this administrative remedy precludes our review of her discrimination claims. Art v. Montana Dept. of Labor and Industry, 2002 MT 327, ¶ 14, 313 Mont. 197, ¶ 14, 60 P.3d 958, ¶ 14. We therefore affirm the District Court's determination that the County Superintendent lacked jurisdiction to address the merits of Dupuis's discrimination claim. We emphasize that our resolution of this case on procedural grounds should not be interpreted as reflecting our view as to whether the District's use of Chiefs and Maidens is degrading and offensive to Native Americans. ¶ 19 Affirmed. We Concur: KARLA M. GRAY, C.J., W. WILLIAM LEAPHART, JOHN WARNER and PATRICIA O. COTTER, JJ.