Montana follows federal law in interpreting the MHRA. Id; Borges v. Missoula County Sheriff's Office, 415 P.3d 976, 984 (Mont. 2018). 6.

The claimant may not file a lawsuit in a district court based on the alleged discriminatory practice until the Act's administrative procedures have been exhausted. Borges v. Missoula County Sheriff's Office, 415 P.3d 976, 981 (Mont. 2018); Griffith v. Butte School District No. 1, 244 P.3d 321, 331 (Mont. 2010). A district court may only entertain those claims that have been investigated and adjudicated by the Montana Human Rights Bureau.

The Ranch argues that these Counts are procedurally barred because Rhoten failed to “file with the [Montana Human Rights Bureau (MHRB)] and exhaust the administrative remedies in the MHRA as required under the Act. (Doc. 31 at 5 (citing Hafner v. Conoco, Inc., 886 P.2d 947, 950 (Mont. 1994); Dupuis v. Bd. of Trs., 128 P.3d 1010, 1013 (Mont. 2006); Borges v. Missoula Cty. Sheriff's Off., 415 P.3d 976, 981 (Mont. 2018)).) Rhoten contends that she did attempt to file her complaint with the MHRB via the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and that any failure on the part of the EEOC to cross-file with the MHRB should not bar her from seeking a remedy in this Court.

If the district court finds no genuine issues of material fact exist, the court must determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Brishka, ¶ 9 (citing Borges v. Missoula Cty. Sheriff's Office, 2018 MT 14, ¶ 16, 390 Mont. 161, 415 P.3d 976). When faced with crossmotions for summary judgment, a district court, and an appellate court on review, must "evaluate each party's motion on its own merits."

Because the MHRA is the "exclusive remedy" for discrimination claims, the district court may only consider factual claims that were raised and adjudicated by the MHRB. Borges v. Missoula Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 2018 MT 14, ¶ 19, 390 Mont. 161, 415 P.3d 976 (citation omitted).

A "significant adverse act" must "adversely affect [the] employment in a[ ] material way." Borges v. Missoula Cty. Sheriff's Office , 2018 MT 14, ¶ 27, 390 Mont. 161, 415 P.3d 976 (internal quotation omitted). A.R.M. 24.9.603(2) provides: "[s]ignificant adverse acts are those that would dissuade a reasonable person from engaging in a protected activity," which may include "discharge, demotion, denial of promotion, denial of other benefits or other material adverse employment action ."

¶16 "Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Wittman v. City of Billings , 2022 MT 129, ¶ 5, 409 Mont. 111, 512 P.3d 1209 (citations and internal quotations omitted); Borges v. Missoula Cty. Sheriff's Office , 2018 MT 14, ¶ 16, 390 Mont. 161, 415 P.3d 976. Evidence is viewed, and reasonable inferences are drawn, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

"Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Brishka, ¶ 9 (citing Borges v. Missoula Cty. Sheriff's Office, 2018 MT 14, ¶16, 390 Mont. 161, 415 P.3d 976). "The district court's conclusion that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law

The MHRA establishes the "exclusive remedy for acts constituting an alleged" discriminatory practice under the Act's provisions; a party claiming discrimination or retaliation may not file a claim in district court without first obtaining an adjudication of that claim by the MHRB. Borges v. Missoula Cty. Sheriff's Office, 2018 MT 14, ¶ 19, 390 Mont. 161, 415 P.3d 976 (citing § 49-2-512(1), MCA). The MHRB must "informally investigate the matters set out in the complaint promptly and impartially to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that the allegations are supported by a preponderance of the evidence."

Crane Creek Ranch, Inc. v. Cresap, 2004 MT 351, ¶ 8, 324 Mont. 366, 103 P.3d 535. Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Borges v. Missoula Cty. Sheriff's Office, 2018 MT 14, ¶ 16, 390 Mont. 161, 415 P.3d 976. To determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, we view all evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.