Opinion ID: 2827981
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of Official Duties

Text: Banneker asserts that all of Graham’s allegedly tortious conduct fell beyond the scope of his official duties, and is thus not immunized under Westfall. 13 Our inquiry into the scope of an official’s duties depends “not [on] the title of [the] office but the duties with which [the official] is entrusted.” Barr, 360 U.S. at 573 (internal quotation marks omitted). Conduct that is at least “within the outer perimeter of [an official’s] line of duty” is shielded by absolute immunity. Id. at 575; see also Griggs, 232 F.3d at 922. By contrast, an official loses the protection of immunity when he crosses that line and acts in a manner that is “manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.” Simons v. Bellinger, 643 F.2d 774, 12 Westfall was superseded by statute for claims brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, but still applies to claims of personal liability against WMATA officials. See Beebe, 129 F.3d at 1289. 13 Banneker acknowledges the apparent tension between its theories that Graham acted within the scope of his employment for purposes of the contract claims against WMATA and beyond the scope of his official duties for purposes of immunity from his own personal liability for tort. We need not resolve that tension now, at the pleading stage, because Banneker is permitted to plead both in the alternative. 34 786 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (quoting Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483, 498 (1896)). One way that an official acts manifestly beyond his authority is through the use of “manifestly excessive means,” even if he does so in the conduct of duties otherwise within his official purview. McKinney v. Whitfield, 736 F.2d 766, 769-70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (emphasis omitted); cf. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 495 (1978). 14 The district court considered all of Graham’s alleged tortious conduct immune because it conceived of the inquiry at too high a level of generality. Rather than analyzing each challenged act, the district court read Banneker’s complaint as attempting to impose liability on Graham for his “involvement[] as a WMATA Board Member . . . in setting contract terms for the development of the Site.” Banneker II, 19 F. Supp. 3d at 248. The appropriate focus, however, is on the relationship between “the act complained of” and the corresponding “matters committed by law to [the official’s] control or supervision.” Barr, 360 U.S. at 573 (internal quotation marks omitted). At a high enough level of generality, almost any act that has any relationship to an overarching duty, such as the duty to vote on real estate projects, will be immunized. We must instead evaluate the relationship of each of the challenged acts to Graham’s relevant, official duties. With respect to each act, we ask 14 See also Griggs, 232 F.3d at 922 (officer empowered to make arrests was not immunized because he used manifestly excessive means when he commanded his dog to attack the plaintiff after the plaintiff complied with the officer’s order, and failed to command the dog to cease its attack); Bishop v. Tice, 622 F.2d 349, 359 (8th Cir. 1980) (supervisors empowered to make employment decisions were not immunized because they “did not simply misuse their authority but went clearly beyond it by threatening [their employee] with criminal charges [in order to force him to resign] instead of attempting to dismiss him for cause”). 35 whether it was among those entrusted to Graham and, if so, whether Graham’s means of accomplishing his official duties were manifestly excessive. Graham is entitled to immunity only if he persuades us that each alleged act was taken appropriately in performance of a corresponding official duty. Some of Banneker’s allegations are aimed at the core of Graham’s official duties. For example, Banneker alleges that Graham persuaded his fellow Board members to add an affordable housing requirement to the project when approving the original Term Sheet. That plainly constitutes an exercise of Graham’s authority as a Board member to urge a Board resolution to impose conditions on development projects, and there is no allegation that Graham pursued the affordable housing requirement through excessive means. Other allegations challenge conduct manifestly beyond Graham’s authority. Banneker alleged that Graham sought to barter a vote in his capacity as member of the D.C. Council for his vote as a WMATA Board member on the Florida Avenue project, and attempted to extort Banneker. Those acts are manifestly beyond the authority of a WMATA Board Member and so not immunized. That leaves allegations of particular acts by Graham that do not fall clearly within or without the outer perimeter of his official duties as we currently understand them. Banneker alleges that Graham exceeded the scope of his authority by leaking confidential bid information to LaKritz Adler in violation of applicable regulations, pressuring Banneker’s development partners to drop out, pressuring Banneker to add LaKritz Adler to its team, seeking to steer the project to LaKritz Adler in violation of Banneker’s exclusivity rights, and giving direction to WMATA staff in connection with the Florida Avenue project in violation of WMATA policy. 36 Banneker’s allegations, however, are not enough for us to decide the question. The scope of Graham’s duties is determined by “controlling law,” Butz, 438 U.S. at 489, which here includes the WMATA Compact and the regulations governing WMATA Board Members’ conduct. Graham bore the burden of establishing his entitlement to official immunity by reference to those sources of law and WMATA policy, but he made no effort in the district court to do so. The record does not contain, for example, any reliable information about the authority of a Board Member to direct WMATA staff, or to participate in or influence negotiations. Without that information, the district court was left only with Banneker’s allegations. Although the immunity issue may be identified through a motion directed to the pleadings, courts may, where appropriate, answer the question of whether an official has acted within the outer perimeter of official duties through limited evidentiary analysis focusing on the nature and scope of the job duties in question. The “functional analysis governing absolute immunity” may call for a “limited factual inquiry” to determine “in what role the challenged function was exercised” and “preclud[e] on occasion disposition at the Rule 12 stage.” Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 496 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). For example, in some cases, affidavits from superiors elucidating an employee’s duties are required to support “[t]his type of limited inquiry.” Expeditions Unlimited Aquatic Enters., Inc. v. Smithsonian Inst., 566 F.2d 289, 292 n.5 (D.C. Cir. 1977). In the context of the Federal Tort Claims Act, scope-ofemployment questions sometimes are resolved in that manner. We have held that, in cases in which factual disputes over the scope of employment arise at the pleading stage, “limited discovery” may be appropriate. See Stokes v. Cross, 327 F.3d 1210, 1214 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Such inquiries primarily 37 involve matters already known to the defendant official; they tend to be discrete inquiries, the general prospect of which is “unlikely to deter any official in the vigorous pursuit of his responsibilities,” Expeditions, 566 F.2d at 292 n.5, and comport with the essential character of official immunity questions as ones that “should be decided at the earliest opportunity,” Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225, 253 (2007). In light of these principles, we hold that Graham failed to bear his burden to establish the scope of his official duties and to situate his conduct within its outer perimeter. On the limited record we have, we have little trouble concluding that the allegations of extortion and the alleged attempt to barter a D.C. Council vote for a WMATA vote manifestly exceeded the scope of Graham’s official duties; we have equally little trouble concluding that Graham’s attempt to add an affordable housing requirement fell within the scope of his official duties. The remaining allegations are more difficult, however, and require more fact-specific inspection. We therefore vacate the district court’s dismissal and remand for the district court to consider in the first instance which of Graham’s other actions fell beyond the outer perimeter of his official duties and whether those actions that did fall beyond the outer perimeter, taken together, state claims against Graham for tortious interference and civil conspiracy.