Opinion ID: 1100590
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Owens and Strength's Hiring of Holmes

Text: Owens and Strength contend that they are entitled to State-agent immunity because in hiring Holmes they were exercising... judgment in the administration of a department or agency of government, including, but not limited to ... hiring, firing, transferring, assigning, or supervising personnel. Cranman, 792 So.2d at 405. Holmes was hired to work at the Tarwater Center in 2001. When Holmes was hired, Owens had replaced Judd as the personnel director for the Tarwater Center and Strength was a personnel assistant. Strength stated in her deposition, attached to the DMHMR defendants' summary-judgment motion, that she interviewed Holmes for the position of mental-health worker. She testified that she did not notice anything peculiar about Holmes during their interview and that he did not mention anything about his religious beliefs or attitude toward mental retardation and that she never heard of his beliefs and attitude during his employment at the Tarwater Center. Deposition testimony presented to the trial court in support of the DMHMR defendants' summary-judgment motion indicates that Owens and Strength hired Holmes as a mental-health worker based on a review of his application, a background check, and an interview. Based on the evidence presented, Owens and Strength carried their burden of showing that they are entitled to State-agent immunity in the hiring of Holmes because they were exercising their discretion in the hiring of personnel for DMHMR. See Cranman, 792 So.2d at 405. Thus, the burden then shifted to Sanders to show that Owens and Strength were not entitled to State-agent immunity because in hiring Homes they had acted willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond [their] authority, or under a mistaken interpretation of the law, Cranman, 792 So.2d at 405. See Ex parte Wood, 852 So.2d at 709. Sanders contends in her answer to the DMHMR defendants' petition that Owens and Strength are not entitled to State-agent immunity in regard to Holmes's hiring because, she says, Holmes was unqualified to work as a mental-health worker based on his alleged belief that mental retardation is the result of demonic possession and that physical violence is the best form of treatment for such a condition. Sanders argues that a proper screening and interview process would have alerted Owens and Strength to Holmes's beliefs and that, because they failed to discern those beliefs during the hiring process, they acted outside their discretionary authority in hiring Holmes. However, Sanders did not, in her response to the DMHMR defendants' summary-judgment motion, provide the trial court with any evidence indicating where she had learned of Holmes's alleged beliefs regarding mental retardation or that Holmes actually holds such beliefs or that hiring someone with such beliefs would be an act not protected by State-agent immunity. [14] We cannot conclude that Sanders presented evidence to the trial court indicating that Owens and Strength's hiring of Holmes was willful, malicious, fraudulent, in bad faith, or beyond their authority. See Cranman, 792 So.2d at 405. Therefore, Sanders did not carry her burden of showing that Owens and Strength are not entitled to State-agent immunity. [15] Owens and Strength carried their burden of showing that their actions fall within a category of conduct protected by State-agent immunity under Cranman, and Sanders failed to present facts showing that Owens and Strength's hiring of Holmes constitutes conduct that falls outside the protection of State-agent immunity. Therefore, applying the burden-shifting analysis articulated in Ex parte Wood, 852 So.2d at 709, we hold that Owens and Strength have established a clear legal right to a summary judgment based on State-agent immunity on Sanders's claims against them relating to the hiring of Holmes.