Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the district court upholding a hearing officer's conclusion that Montana State University-North (MSU-N) retaliated against Dr. Randy Bachmeier for reporting and pursuing a claim of sexual harassment against his supervisor, holding that the district court erred in reinstating the hearing officer's first decision as the final agency decision in this matter.The hearing officer's original order concluded that Bachmeier failed to demonstrate that his supervisor sexually harassed him but that MSU-N retaliated against Bachmeier. The HRC rejected the hearing officer's conclusion that Bachmeier was discriminated against, upheld the hearing officer's retaliation conclusion, and remanded the case. The hearing officer issued a second decision concluding that Bachmeier had been sexually harassed. The Montana Human Rights Commission (HRC) then issued a final agency decision reducing the damages award for sexual harassment but leaving untouched the retaliation award. The district court voided the hearing officer's second decision and remanded with instructions to reinstate the hearing officer's first decision as the final agency decision. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) abused its discretion by concluding that the HRC did not have the authority to modify the hearing officer's first decision; and (2) correctly upheld the hearing officer's retaliation conclusion. View "Montana State University-Northern v. Bachmeier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claim brought by the Montana Independent Living Project, Inc. (MILP) that the City of Helena retaliated against it when the City lowered the priority of MILP's request for funding as a result of an unrelated discrimination MILP had filed against the City, holding that the district court properly dismissed MILP as a plaintiff for lack of standing.In granting the City's motion to dismiss, the district court concluded that Mont. Code Ann. 49-2-301 does not allow non-human entities to sue for retaliation, and therefore, MILP had no standing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly held that section 49-2-301 does not allow non-human entities to file retaliation claims under the Montana Human Rights Act. View "Maffit v. City of Helena" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part Defendant's convictions for deliberate homicide and tampering with physical evidence, holding that Defendant's constitutional right of confrontation was violated, requiring reversal of his conviction of tampering with physical evidence.On appeal, Defendant argued that he was denied his right under the United States and Montana Constitutions to confront witnesses against him when the State presented a foundational witness in real time by two-way videoconference. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) furtherance of an important public policy to allow the witness to testify via two-way videoconferencing was not demonstrated in this case, and therefore, the first prong of the analysis set forth in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), was not satisfied; and (2) Defendant's right to a fair trial was not undermined by the prosecutor's closing argument. View "State v. Mercier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order terminating Mother's parental rights to her three children, holding that Mother's attorney did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel.At issue was whether counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance when he stipulated to the request of the Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division that no reunification services be provided to Mother. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's termination of Mother's parental rights, holding (1) Mother was not prejudiced by any alleged failure on her attorney's part to object to the Department's request not to provide reunification services; (2) the district court had grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights and made the findings necessary to support termination; and (3) the district court did not err in finding that termination would be in the children's best interests. View "In re D.A.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court that the Montana Board of Pardons and Parole did not violate Appellant's statutory or constitutional rights in denying Appellant's parole request, holding that the district court did not err.Appellant sought judicial review of the Board's decision, claiming that the Board denied him his right to know, right to participate, or right to due process when it denied him parole without first furnishing him a copy of documents on which the Board relied in making its decision. Appellant further argued that the Board unlawfully relied on a guideline without having adopted it as an administrative rule pursuant to the Montana Administrative Procedure Act. The district court granted summary judgment for the Board. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) where the guideline was not the reason for the Board's decision, Appellant could not demonstrated the likelihood of a different outcome; and (2) the Board did not violate Appellant's right to know, right to participate, or due process rights. View "Miller v. Montana Board of Pardons & Parole" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Workers' Compensation Court that Mont. Code Ann. 39-71-703(2) did not violate Appellant's right to equal protection by denying an impairment award to a worker with a Class 1 impairment who has suffered no wage loss, holding that the statute passes rational basis muster under the Equal Protection Clause of the Montana Constitution.Section 39-71-703(2) allows impairment awards for claimants without actual wage loss only if they have a Class 2 or higher impairment rating. Appellant, who was designated as Class 1 and was denied an impairment award, challenged the statute, arguing that it violated her constitutional right to equal protection because other workers with different injuries but the same whole-person impairment percentage would receive the award. The WCC denied the challenge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the WCC did not err in its determination that section 39-71-703(2) did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. View "Hensley v. Montana State Fund" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of vehicular homicide while under the influence, holding that Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-411 does not violate either the substantive due process or equal protection guarantees of the state and federal constitutions.Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that section 61-8-411 was facially unconstitutional as a violation of his substantive due process rights. The district court denied the motion to dismiss. On appeal, Defendant argued that the legislature could have made a more scientifically based policy choice to keep drivers impaired by THC off the road and that the statute unconstitutionally creates classifications. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-411 is rationally related to the government's compelling interest in keeping drug-impaired drivers off the road. View "State v. Jensen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed the charges against Defendant, holding that Defendant was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial and was presumptively prejudiced by the delay.The State filed an information charging Defendant with burglary and theft of more than $800. Nearly five years after his arrest Defendant had still not been brought to trial. Defendant filed a pro se motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that the five-year delay violated his right to a speedy trial. The district court denied the motion. Defendant pleaded guilty, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his speedy trial motion. The Supreme Court dismissed the charges against Defendant, holding that Defendant was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. View "State v. Chambers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion to exclude evidence obtained during a traffic stop and to dismiss the charges against him, holding that an officer has a lawful right of access to reach into a vehicle and seize plainly visible contraband observed by the officer during a lawful traffic stop.Defendant was charged with criminal possession of dangerous drugs and criminal possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant moved to exclude the evidence obtained during the traffic stop and to dismiss the charges, arguing that the deputy sheriff's warrantless seizure of a plastic bag found on Defendant's lap was unlawful. The district court denied the motion. Defendant then pled guilty, preserving his right to appeal the denial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the officer's warrantless seizure of the bag was not unlawful because the officer was lawfully present next to Defendant's truck during the traffic stop, could plainly see readily apparent contraband fall onto Defendant's lap, and had a lawful right of access to that contraband. View "State v. Tenold" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's felony conviction of criminal possession with intent to distribute, holding that the district court did not err in determining that the State was not required to disclose the identity of its confidential informant.After Defendant was charged, he moved to dismiss the case on the basis that the State had failed to disclose the confidential informant's identity within the discovery timeframe. The district court summarily denied Defendant's motion to dismiss, declining to require disclosure of the confidential informant's identity. Defendant pled guilty, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err as a matter of law in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss and did not abuse its discretion in denying disclosure of the confidential informant's identity. View "State v. Soto" on Justia Law