of liability in this case assumes that WDEA implicitly creates such a remedy. Indeed, she has not identified any other contractual, regulatory, or statutory provision — besides WDEA itself — to suggest that Costco was obliged to rehire her after her 2007 termination. Instead, her claims rest on the premise that her success in the prior WDEA lawsuit imposed a legal duty on Costco to rehire her. That premise is not supported by Montana case law. If anything, the relevant Montana Supreme Court cases suggest that an employer cannot be held liable under WDEA for its “failure to recall or rehire” a former employee unless that employer has some independent legal duty— such as a contractual obligation — to do so. See Kneeland v. Luzenac America, Inc., 289 Mont. 201, 208-10, 961 P.2d 725 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Arnold v. Boise Cascade Corp., 259 Mont. 259,
holding that plaintiffs wdea claim was without merit where plaintiff was unable to identify any basis for his claim that the employer had a duty to rehire him holding that a claim of privilege to bank records pursuant to federal public policy was without merit holding that a plaintiff is required to identify specific acts of individual defendants  for his claim to survive holding that plaintiff had stated a claim for violation of his first amendment right to intimate association where he alleged that his employer harassed him in retaliation for his fathers political activities holding that the ada plaintiff was unable to perform essential functions of job when the plaintiffs psychotherapist had told the employer that the plaintiff was unable to work in any position when the plaintiff did not disagree with that point and when the plaintiff in response to a request for admission conceded that she was no longer able to work