Saucier ex rel. Mallory v. McDonald's Restaurants of Montana, Inc., 2008 MT 63

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court reviewed summary judgment rulings involving tort and sex- and disability-discrimination claims arising from a restaurant manager’s sexual relationship with an intellectually disabled employee. The court considered whether the Montana Human Rights Act exclusively preempted the employee’s tort claims and whether McDonald’s established an affirmative defense to the discrimination claims. The court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.

Holdings

1. Allegations of non-consensual sex sound in tort rather than employment discrimination and therefore are not barred by the Montana Human Rights Act's exclusive-remedy provision.
2. Summary judgment was improper because conflicting evidence created a genuine issue of material fact regarding Saucier's capacity to consent to sexual conduct with Keeton.
3. McDonald's was entitled to summary judgment on the discrimination claims because the same allegations were determined to sound in tort, and the MHRA does not permit simultaneous pursuit of a discrimination claim in district court based on those allegations.
4. Respondeat superior is not an independent tort cause of action; it is an agency doctrine attributing one person's acts to another.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Montana Human Rights Act's exclusivity provision barred Saucier's tort claims arising from alleged non-consensual sexual conduct by her supervisor.
2. Whether disputed evidence concerning Saucier's mental capacity to consent created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment on the tort claims.
3. Whether McDonald's was entitled to summary judgment on Saucier's gender- and disability-discrimination claims.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded