Section 8.5 Board Members and Administrators (Official Immunity)

• Library: School Law (2003 Ed. + 2016 Supp)

B. (§8.5) Board Members and Administrators (Official Immunity)

At least one Missouri court has held that the Supreme Court of Missouri, in Jones v. State Highway Commission, 557 S.W.2d 225 (Mo. banc 1977), did not, in abrogating sovereign immunity as discussed in §8.4 above, intend to abrogate the related doctrine of official immunity for individual persons. State ex rel. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Gaertner, 619 S.W.2d 761, 763 (Mo. App. E.D. 1981). When a public official is exercising judgment and discretion, the official is immune from suits filed as a result of his or her actions in the absence of willful wrongdoing. The policy underlying the doctrine of official immunity is the necessity for a vigorous and effective government that can operate free from fear of suits filed as a result of its actions. Id.

Regardless of whether a public employee is classified as a public official for purposes of immunity depends on the legal and factual circumstances involved. School board members are public officials entitled to official immunity. Lehmen v. Wansing, 624 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Mo. banc 1981). A public official has been defined as a person holding a public office, whose duties are fixed by law, and who exercises some portion of the sovereign’s power in the performance of the statutorily designated duties. State ex rel. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Gaertner, 619 S.W.2d at 764. School board members clearly have statutorily designated duties in operating the public schools for the state.

The parameters of the doctrine of official immunity remain somewhat convoluted as applied to supervisory school officials, such as superintendents, administrators, and school principals. Clearly, as discussed above, courts recognize that school board members qualify as public officials who may be entitled to official immunity. See, e.g., Webb v. Reisel, 858 S.W.2d 767 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993).

But the applicability of official immunity to school superintendents and principals has been rejected by at least one court. Bolon v. Rolla Pub. Schs., 917 F. Supp. 1423 (E.D. Mo. 1996). Other courts, conversely, have recognized the application of the doctrine of official immunity to school administrators. Mauzy v. Mexico Sch. Dist. No. 59, 878 F. Supp. 153 (E.D. Mo. 1995); Carlson v. Midway R-I Sch. Dist., No. 91-0702-CV-W-6, 1994 WL 409590 (W.D. Mo. July 25, 1994); Doe “A” v. Special Sch. Dist. of St. Louis County, 637 F. Supp. 1138 (E.D. Mo. 1986) (holding that the doctrine of official immunity protected...