Hafner v. Montana Department of Labor & Industry

I dissent. The majority opinion ignores the obvious and clearly stated reason for Hafner’s dismissal and, further, countenances a *103result which the Department’s own regulations would not allow, if they were correctly followed.

1. The reason for Hafher’s termination was his status as a plaintiff in a case against Conoco.

This Court usually adheres to the general legal principle that, in the absence of an ambiguity, a document should be presumed to mean precisely what it says. We have repeatedly acknowledged this principle when construing contracts and statutes. See, for example, Carbon County v.…