6.20.020 Absolute immunity of elected officials, employees, and officers.
Absolute immunity arises from the governmental function being performed and the nature of the responsibilities of the elected official, employee, or officer, not from the specific action taken. In deciding whether the elected official, employee, or officer performing a particular function is entitled to absolute immunity, a court should look to a historical or common-law basis for the immunity in question. The benefits of absolute immunity lie principally in avoiding disruption of governmental functions. The determination of whether absolute immunity is justified in a particular context depends on the degree to which the governmental function would suffer under the threat of prospective litigation. In deciding whether particular governmental functions properly fall within the scope of absolute immunity for elected officials, employees, or officers, a court should consider whether the contribution to effective government in particular context outweighs the potential harm to individual citizens.
To the fullest extent of the law, as applicable, and except as otherwise provided by ordinance of the council, absolute immunity defenses for an elected official, employee, and officer include, but are not necessarily limited to:
(1) Executive Privilege. In exercising the functions of a position, employment, or office that encompasses public duties, official in character, an elected official, employee, and officer, keeping with the limits of his/her authority, should not be under an apprehension that the motives that control his/her conduct may, at any time, become the subject of inquiry in a civil suit for damages. It would seriously cripple the proper and effective administration of public affairs as entrusted to the executive branch of the government if he/she were subjected to any such restraint. He/she may have legal authority to act, but he/she may have such broad discretion that it will not always be his/her absolute duty to exercise the authority with which he/she is invested. But, if he/she acts, having authority, his/her conduct cannot be made the foundation of a suit against him/her personally for damages, even if the circumstances show that he/she is not disagreeably impressed by the fact that his/her action injuriously affects the claims of particular individuals.
This rule applies to all executive elected officials, employees, and officers when performing within the scope of their power, whose acts require the exercise of discretion or judgment. This immunity never covers occasions where the public good is not the aim of the elected official, employee, or officer.
The protection of this rule extends so as to reach and include subordinate government officers in the discharge of duties imposed on them by law.
(2) Legislative Immunity. Elected officials, employees, and officers acting as legislators are absolutely immune from suits for either prospective relief or damages. Legislative immunity ensures that the legislative function may be performed independently without fear of outside interference. The immunity attaches to any elected official, employee, or officer acting in the sphere of any legitimate legislative activity, including the conduct or participation of investigations by standing or special committees.
Whether an act is legislative turns on the nature of the act, not the motive of the actor. Executive or administrative acts (e.g., determining the rights of specific individuals) are beyond the scope of either legislative or judicial immunity.
(3) Judicial Immunity. Judges sitting on courts of limited or general jurisdiction have absolute immunity from claims brought against them in their individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages based on judicial acts, not on administrative decisions; however, liability is permitted only for acts taken in the clear absence of jurisdiction. Judicial immunity protects judges even when their judicial acts exceed their jurisdiction, are done maliciously or corruptly, or are flawed by grave procedural error.
Four factors determine whether an act is judicial: (a) whether the precise act complained of is a normal judicial function; (b) whether the acts occurred in the courtroom or appropriate adjunct spaces, such as the judge’s chambers; (c) whether the controversy centered around a case pending before the court; and (d) whether the acts arose directly out of a visit to the judge in his official capacity.
(4) Quasi-Judicial Immunity. Administrative adjudication can give rise to absolute quasi-judicial immunity when the administrative adjudicator performs a judicial function in proceedings sufficiently judicial in character. Because judicial immunity arises from the performance of an adjudicatory function (e.g., deciding facts, applying law, resolving disputes on the merits, etc.), it extends to judicial or adjudicative acts within a quasi-judicial administrative proceeding, whether or not the actor is a judge or an administrator.
Six factors are relevant to determining whether an individual performing administrative adjudicatory functions is entitled to absolute or qualified immunity: (a) the need to assure that the individual can perform his/her functions without harassment or intimidation; (b) the presence of safeguards that reduce the need for private damages actions as a means of controlling conduct that violates established rights; (c) insulation from political influence; (d) the importance of precedent; (e) the adversary nature of the process; and (f) the ability to correct an error on appeal.
(5) Prosecutorial Immunity. Criminal and civil prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from damage liability for the initiation and prosecution of a criminal or civil penalty case, as initiating a prosecution and presenting a case are activities that are intimately associated with the judicial phase of criminal or civil penalty process, and thus are functions to which the reasons for absolute immunity apply with full force. Prosecutorial immunity is functional, attaching only to acts intimately related to the initiation and prosecution of a criminal or civil penalty case.
(6) Witness Immunity. With the exception of complaining witnesses who sign affidavits seeking the issuance of search or arrest warrants, witnesses in judicial proceedings are absolutely immune from suit arising from their testimony. [Ord. 05-31-2018-C § 2(02.05.04.020), 2018.]