Opinion ID: 1499122
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the yanero test for qualified official immunity

Text: Under Yanero , public officers and employees are entitled to qualified official immunity for negligent conduct when the negligent act or omissions were (1) discretionary acts or functions, that (2) were made in good faith ( i.e. were not made in bad faith), and (3) were within the scope of the employee's authority. Yanero, 65 S.W.3d at 522. Conversely, no immunity is afforded for the negligent performance or omissions of a ministerial act, or if the officer or employee willfully or maliciously intended to harm the plaintiff or acted with a corrupt motive, i.e., again the bad faith element. Id. at 523. And [o]nce the officer or employee has shown prima facie that the act was performed within the scope of his/her discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish by direct or circumstantial evidence that the discretionary act [was in bad faith]. Id. In all instances, however, there must be a causally related violation of a constitutional, statutory, or other clearly established right of the complainant. Id. It is these causally related violations or acts which are measured against the standards of discretionary or ministerial duties, not the distant myriad acts or omissions that one could logically construct to have preceded them. [I]f one retreats far enough from a . . . violation[, a distant act or omission] can be identified behind almost any such harm inflicted . . . . At the very least there must be an affirmative link between [the act or omission] and the. . . violation alleged. City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823, 105 S.Ct. 2427, 2436, 85 L.Ed.2d 791(1985).