JOHNSON v. STATE, 238 Mont. 215 (1989)

776 P.2d 1221

JUDITH A. JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. STATE OF MONTANA, ED ARGENBRIGHT, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS

No. 88-236Supreme Court of MontanaSubmitted April 11, 1989
Decided July 19, 1989 Rehearing Denied August 11, 1989

Appeal from the District Court of Lewis and Clark County.
First Judicial District.
Hon. Leif B. Erickson, Judge Presiding.

Beda J. Lovitt, Office of Public Instruction, John H. Maynard, Dept. of Admin., Helena, Sam Haddon argued, Missoula, for defendants and appellants

Page 216

W. William Leaphart argued, Helena, for plaintiff and respondent

Jeffrey T. Renz, American Civil Liberties Union, Billings, Marshall Murray, Murray, Kaufman, Vidal, Gordon Ogle, Montana Inn-keepers Assoc., et al., Kalispell, for amicus curiae

MR. JUSTICE 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, §§ 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 II, § 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 1272; 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 II, § 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. 1989), [238 Mont. 21], 776 P.2d 488, [46 St.Rep 1058], overrules White and Pfost, relative to Article II, § 16. Specifically, Meech holds that Article II, § 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

Page 217

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 wit Meech.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE and MR. JUSTICES HARRISON, GULBRANDSON and WEBER concur

MR. JUSTICE SHEEHY, dissenting:

For all of the reasons expressed in my dissent in Meech v Hillhaven West, Inc. (Mont. 1989), [238 Mont. 21,] number 88-410, filed June 21, 1989 [46 St.Rep. 1058], 775 P.2d 488, I emphatically dissent from this decision

MR. JUSTICE HUNT concurs in the foregoing dissent

Page 218