Document: 484 U.S. 292 108 S.Ct. 580 98 L.Ed.2d 619 Rodney P. WESTFALL, et al., Petitionersv.William T. ERWIN, Sr., and Emely Erwin. No. 86-714. Argued Nov. 2, 1987. Decided Jan. 13, 1988. Syllabus Respondents, husband wife, brought a state-law tort suit in state court alleging that, while working as federal civilian employee at an Army Depot, the received chemical burns when he was exposed to toxic soda ash that improperly stored depot result of negligence petitioner supervisors. The Federal District Court which petitioners removed action held were absolutely immune from since alleged committed they acting within scope their employment, granted summary judgment favor. Appeals reversed, holding enjoys immunity only if challenged conduct, addition being employee's duties, is also discretionary act. Held: Conduct by officials must be nature, well before conduct liability. See Doe v. McMillan, 412 306, 93 2018, 36 912. Granting absolute for nondiscretionary functions would not further official doctrine's central purpose promoting effective government insulating decisionmaking process harassment prospective litigation could make unduly timid carrying out duties. threat liability cannot detrimentally inhibit product independent judgment, it exercise discretion potential may shackle fearless, vigorous, administration governmental policies. Petitioners' alternative argument function requirement satisfied precise prescribed law exercises "minimal discretion" rejected. This approach loses sight underlying doctrine ignoring balance benefits costs under circumstances, and, adopted, render essentially meaningless. Virtually all acts involve some modicum choice yet such will often largely unaffected prospect liability, thereby making provision unnecessary unwise. Here, no evidence presented controverting respondents' assertion involved there genuine issue material fact whether entitled immunity, correct reversing grant judgment. Pp. 295-300. 785 F.2d 1551 (CA11 1986), affirmed. MARSHALL, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Donald B. Ayer, Sacramento, Cal., petitioners. M. Clay Alspaugh, Birmingham, Ala., respondents. Justice MARSHALL 1 Respondent William Erwin his wife respondent against petitioners, employees Executive Branch, had suffered injuries petitioners' performing acts. these are employment without regard nature. 2 * Respondents commenced this court. At time tort, employed Government warehouseman Anniston Depot Anniston, Alabama. Petitioners supervisors Depot.1 Respondents' complaint came into contact with bags "were negligently stored." Record, Complaint ¶ 3. stated eyes throat inhaled dust spilled its bag. asserted "should have been routed warehouse where [he] working," "someone should known provided [him] warning presence danger it." Doc. 4, p. 1. charged "in proximately causing, permitting, or allowing inhale . ash." 6. 3 United States Northern Alabama pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). After finding "any ordinary torts jobs." Civ. Action CV85-H-874-S, (June 5, 1985). reasoning " 'only act outer perimeter actor's line duty.' 1551, 1552 1986) (quoting Johns Pettibone Corp., 769 724, 728 1985)). erred failing consider discretionary, suit. Summary inappropriate, concluded, because respondents "alleged undisputed facts sufficient create question [petitioners'] complained-of discretionary." F.2d, 1553. 4 We certiorari, 480 905, 107 1346, 94 517 (1987), resolve dispute among Courts liability.2 affirm. II 5 In Barr Matteo, 360 564, 79 1335, 1434 (1959), Howard Lyons, 593, 1331, 1454 afforded matter law, "to formulated courts absence legislative Congress." Id., 597, S.Ct., 1334. protect erring official, but insulate litigation. rests on view promoted freed vexatious frivolous damages suits. supra, U.S., 571, 1339; 319, 2028, 912 (1973). always has recognized, however, comes great cost. An injured party otherwise meritorious claim denied compensation simply misfortune official. Moreover, contravenes basic tenet individuals accountable wrongful conduct. therefore justified "the contributions particular contexts outweigh perhaps recurring harm individual citizens." 320, 2028.3 6 initially ask we endorse followed Fourth Eighth Circuits, see General Electric Co. States, 813 1273, 1276-1277 (CA4 1987); Poolman Nelson, 802 304, 307 (CA8 present action, suits "whenever falls duties." Brief 12. argue rule benefit eliminating uncertainty actions, most effectively ensure free inhibition. Neither purposes nor our cases support broad refuse adopt position. 7 government, furthered shielding tortious When official's It policies government." 1339. Because governance, finds traditional justification immunity. 8 explicitly rejected suggestion attaches solely both constitutional violations common-law Public Printer Superintendent Documents arising public distribution congressional committee's report. recognizing documents 'within perimeter' statutory duties Documents," stated: "[I]f automatically any expressly impliedly authorized correctly dismissed officials. This, governing rule." 322, 2030. went evaluate level exercised officials, "exercise respect estimating demand adjusting supply accordingly." 323, enjoyed acts, instead extent ordering printing same id., 323-324, key importance lies analysis critical factor evaluating legitimacy As Doe's makes clear, actions available nature.4 9 position, contend even required attaches, long discretion." 15. If mandated argue, then "discretionary" reject wooden interpretation requirement. virtually choice, reading Furthermore, focusing entirely controlled regulation, ignores circumstances thus doctrine. 2029. 10 case, Appeals, reviewing determination, discretionary. Applying foregoing clear Court's burden proving "duties require them follow established procedures guidelines," "are policy-making work Government." 2. response, relating exercise. aver merely "within Exh. A, above, A exists connection warrant shield 11 case us relevant factual background undeveloped, called define boundaries determine attach. deciding properly fall careful heed admonition contribution outweighs citizens. lose resolving claims formulating general guidelines. view, Congress best position provide guidance complex highly empirical inquiry warranted context. Legislated standards useful. III 12 does unless attach law. There Accordingly, 13 so ordered. Petitioner Westfall chief Receiving Section Rutledge Breakdown Bulk Delivery Unit, Bell Unloading Unit Compare 1987), (federal employment), 1985), Araujo Welch, 742 802, 804 (CA3 1984) discretionary). determining propriety favored "functional" inquiry—immunity functions, offices. See, e.g., Forrester White, 219, 224, 538, ----, 555 (1988); Harlow Fitzgerald, 457 800, 811-812, 102 2727, 2734-35, 73 396 (1982); 319-320, 2028; 572-573, 1340, (1959). adoption functional reflects concern, expressed Doe, insofar costs. lie principally avoiding disruption context depends degree suffer recognize plurality contained language led believe 307-308. close Barr, shows nature Harlan's opinion. Harlan specifically noted "was appropriate officer rank possess service effectively" applies those levels concept duty encompasses sound authority." 575, 1341 (footnote omitted). did purport depart widely W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. & Owen, Prosser Keeton Law Torts 1059-1060 (5th ed. 1984).

Category: 7