Recognizing and Taking Advantage of Government … and Taking Advantage of GtGovernment IitiI ......

Recognizing and Taking Advantage Recognizing and Taking Advantage f G t I itif G t I itiof Government Immunitiesof Government Immunities

Luther Lewis and Jason ShermanLuther Lewis and Jason ShermanLuther Lewis and Jason ShermanLuther Lewis and Jason ShermanJohnson Schachter & LewisJohnson Schachter & Lewis

A Professional Law CorporationA Professional Law CorporationS CS CSacramento, CASacramento, CA

Raising Immunities in GeneralRaising Immunities in GeneralRaising Immunities in GeneralRaising Immunities in General

• Demurrer/Judgment on the PleadingsDemurrer/Judgment on the Pleadings• Motion to Strike• Answer• Answer• Anti‐SLAPP Motion (CCP § 425.16)M ti f S J d t• Motion for Summary Judgment

• In Limine Motions• At Trial• First Time on Appeal

“Executive Privilege” “Executive Privilege” –– Civil Code Civil Code ( )( )§§ 47(a)47(a)

• “A privileged publication or broadcast is oneA privileged publication or broadcast is one made: (a) In the proper discharge of an official duty”official duty.– The executive privilege broadly “encompass[es] all discretionary acts essential to the proper exercisediscretionary acts essential to the proper exercise of an executive function decision.”Morrow v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1442.

“Executive Privilege” “Executive Privilege” –– Civil Code Civil Code ( )( )§§ 47(a)47(a)

• Hypo: In contract dispute over whetherHypo: In contract dispute over whether private prison and owner misappropriated $1 6 million Director of Department of$1.6 million, Director of Department of Corrections released contract termination letter to the press which accused prison andletter to the press which accused prison and its owner of misappropriation and illegal conspiracyconspiracy.

“Litigation Privilege” “Litigation Privilege” –– Civil Code Civil Code (b)(b)§§ 47(b)47(b)

• “A privileged publication or broadcast is oneA privileged publication or broadcast is one made:

(b) In any (1) legislative proceeding (2)(b) In any (1) legislative proceeding, (2) judicial proceeding, (3) in any other official proceeding authorized by law or (4) in theproceeding authorized by law, or (4) in the initiation or course of any other proceeding authorized by law ”authorized by law….

Examples of “Proceedings”Examples of Proceedings

• Court Proceedings • Workers’ Comp. g• Board Meetings• Skelly Hearings

pInvestigations

• Complaints Designed to “Prompt” Action• State Personnel Board

Hearings• Whistleblower

Prompt Action• Communications in

Connection with • Whistleblower Complaints/Investigations

• Investigations of

Hiring/Firing• Responding to Public

Records Act RequestsComplaints• Personnel Investigations

Records Act Requests• Mandated Reports of

Suspected Child Abuse


• Hypo: Vocational instructor at a prison subjectHypo: Vocational instructor at a prison subject to internal investigation into allegations of illegal sexual activity with inmates sues forillegal sexual activity with inmates sues for Whistleblower retaliation claiming the investigation was retaliatory for priorinvestigation was retaliatory for prior disclosures of illegal acts by prison.


• Hypo: A group of parents verbally accuseHypo: A group of parents verbally accuse baseball coach of being a bad coach, being unethical having severe anger and emotionalunethical, having severe anger and emotional problems, and verbally and physically abusing the players Parents then submit writtenthe players. Parents then submit written complaint to school board seeking termination of the coachtermination of the coach.

Instituting and Prosecuting Admin. Instituting and Prosecuting Admin. dd ddProceedings Proceedings –– Govt. Code Govt. Code §§ 821.6821.6

• “A public employee is not liable for injuryA public employee is not liable for injury caused by his instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding withinjudicial or administrative proceeding within the scope of his employment, even if he acts maliciously and without probable cause ”maliciously and without probable cause.

• Purpose is to protect public employees in the performance of prosecutorial duties from theperformance of prosecutorial duties from the threat of harassment through civil suits.


• Not limited to prosecutorsNot limited to prosecutors.

• Investigations are part of administrative proceedingsproceedings.

• Immunity extends to investigations even if h i l d i i i ithere is a later decision not to institute administrative proceedings or to initiate a

iprosecution.


• Hypo: In connection with a Workers’Hypo: In connection with a Workers Compensation claim, investigator gained access to and videotaped employee’saccess to and videotaped employee s wedding, then followed her on her honeymoon and took photographs andhoneymoon and took photographs and videotapes of her.

Richardson Tunnell v School Ins Program forRichardson‐Tunnell v. School Ins. Program for Employees (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1056.

§§§§ 47(b) and 821.647(b) and 821.6§§§§ 47(b) and 821.647(b) and 821.6

§ 47(b) Privilege §821 6 Immunity§ 47(b) Privilege• Applies to both private and

public entities

§821.6 Immunity

• Applies only to public employees

• Absolute privilege• Broad in scope and

application – applies to

• Absolute immunity

• Narrow in scope – chief “ l”

application applies to legislative and “other official proceedings”– E g expressing an opinion

purpose is “prosecutorial” proceedings– E.g. internal investigation of E.g. expressing an opinion

during a board meeting about an issue under consideration by the board

g gpotentially criminal misconduct by employee

AntiAnti‐‐SLAPP vs.SLAPP vs. §§§§ 47(a) and (b)47(a) and (b)AntiAnti SLAPP vs. SLAPP vs. §§§§ 47(a) and (b)47(a) and (b)

Anti‐SLAPP §§ 47(a) and (b)Anti‐SLAPP• (1) Any written or oral statement

or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial

§§ 47(a) and (b)• (a) In the proper discharge of an

official duty [executive];

proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law.CCP §425.16(e)(1)

• (2) Any written or oral statement

• (b) In any (1) legislativeproceeding, (2) judicialproceeding, (3) in any other ffi i l di th i d b• (2) Any written or oral statement

or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive or judicial body or any

official proceeding authorized by law, or (4) in the initiation or course of any other proceeding authorized by law and reviewableexecutive, or judicial body, or any

other official proceeding authorized by lawCCP §425.16 (e)(2)

authorized by law and reviewable [by writ of mandate].

RaisingRaising §§§§ 47(a) and (b) and 821.647(a) and (b) and 821.6Raising Raising §§§§ 47(a) and (b) and 821.647(a) and (b) and 821.6

• Anti‐SLAPP (CCP § 425 16)Anti SLAPP (CCP § 425.16)– “A plaintiff cannot establish a probability of prevailing if the litigation privilege [§47(b)]prevailing if the litigation privilege [§47(b)] precludes the defendant’s liability on the claim.” Digerati Holdings, LLC v. Young Money Entertainment, LLC, 194 Cal.App.4th 873, 888 (2011).

– If these statutes are implicated, an immediate analysis of the Anti‐SLAPP statute is necessary.

“Common Interest” Privilege “Common Interest” Privilege ‐‐ Civil Civil dd ( )( )Code Code §§ 47(c)47(c)

• “A privileged publication or broadcast is one p eged pub cat o o b oadcast s o emade: (c) In a communication, without malice, to a person interested therein, (1) by one who is also interested, or (2) by one who stands in such a l ti t th i t t d t ff drelation to the person interested as to afford a

reasonable ground for supposing the motive for the communication to be innocent, or (3) who isthe communication to be innocent, or (3) who is requested by the person interested to give the information.”


• Qualified privilege – a plaintiff may defeat theQualified privilege a plaintiff may defeat the application by proving the publication was made with “actual malice”made with actual malice

• Burden to prove actual malice is on plaintiff

P bli i i d i d d• Publication is presumed innocent and made without malice

• Privilege often applies in the context of employment qualification inquiries


• Hypo: Teacher requests administrativeHypo: Teacher requests administrative supervisor to submit “recommendation” form in support of teacher’s application to a university’s master’s degree program. Supervisor writes he would not be willing to

l li i h h h ’employ an applicant with the teacher’s characteristics, and “I believe that teacher has some ethnocentric issues that should besome ethnocentric issues that should be addressed before moving into administration.”

Raising “Common Interest” Privilege Raising “Common Interest” Privilege ‐‐l dl d ( )( )Civil Code Civil Code §§ 47(c)47(c)

• DemurrerDemurrer– Difficult because the privilege can be defeated with evidence of “actual malice”with evidence of actual malice

• Summary JudgmentPresumption that communication is innocent– Presumption that communication is innocent shifts the burden to Plaintiff to produce evidence of “actual malice”of actual malice

NoerrNoerr‐‐PenningtonPennington Immunity DoctrineImmunity DoctrineNoerrNoerr PenningtonPennington Immunity DoctrineImmunity Doctrine

• “Under the Noerr‐Pennington Doctrine, those who g ,petition the government for redress are generally immune from statutory liability for their petitioning conduct ” (Empress LLC v City & County of Sanconduct. (Empress LLC v. City & County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2000) 419 F.3d 1052, 1056.)

• Protects petitioning activity including acts “sufficiently p g y g yrelated to petitioning activity” or “conduct incidental to the prosecution of a lawsuit” by both government entities and government officials (Manistee Town Ctrentities and government officials. (Manistee Town Ctr. v. City of Glendale (9th Cir. 2000) 227 F.3d 1090.)

NoerrNoerr‐‐PenningtonPennington Immunity DoctrineImmunity DoctrineNoerrNoerr PenningtonPennington Immunity DoctrineImmunity Doctrine

• Petitioning activity encompasses both filing and responding to litigation or similar proceedings.

• Applies to bar federal statutory liability (i.e. 42 U.S.C. §1983) as well as state law causes of action.§1983) as well as state law causes of action.

• Applies to both communications and actions or other noncommunicative conduct.

E t t i d t f lid ti W k ’– E.g. strategic conduct of consolidating Workers’ Compensation cases

• Immunity does not apply to “sham” petitioning dconduct

– E.g. filing suit to harass competitors and delay licensing.

RaisingRaising NoerrNoerr‐‐PenningtonPennington ImmunityImmunityRaising Raising NoerrNoerr PenningtonPennington ImmunityImmunity

• Demurrer/Motion to Dismiss in Federal CourtDemurrer/Motion to Dismiss in Federal Court– A “heightened pleading standard” is applied, requiring the plaintiff to “satisfy more than therequiring the plaintiff to satisfy more than the usual 12(b)(6) standard.”

– Under this standard, the complaint will beUnder this standard, the complaint will be dismissed unless it includes allegations establishing “sham proceedings.”

• Anti‐SLAPP – to dismiss state law claims

Misrepresentation Misrepresentation –– Govt. Code Govt. Code §§§§dd818.8 and 822.2818.8 and 822.2

• §818.8 – “A public entity is not liable for an injury §8 8.8 pub c e t ty s ot ab e o a ju ycaused by misrepresentation by an employee of the public entity, whether or not such

b l l ”misrepresentation be negligent or intentional.”• §822.2 – “A public employee acting in the scope

f hi l t i t li bl f i jof his employment is not liable for an injury caused by his misrepresentation, whether or not such misrepresentation be negligent orsuch misrepresentation be negligent or intentional, unless he is guilty of actual fraud, corruption or actual malice.”


§ 818 8 § 822 2§ 818.8

• Absolute immunity.

• A public entity cannot be

§ 822.2

• Qualified immunity.

• Public employee can beA public entity cannot be held liable for alleged misrepresentations as a matter of law

Public employee can be liable for “actual fraud, corruption or actual malice ”matter of law. malice.


• These immunities are limited to the invasionThese immunities are limited to the invasion of interests of a financial or commercial character in the course of business dealingscharacter, in the course of business dealings.– Employment related claims (recruitment, hiring, firing) have been held to be sufficiently financial infiring) have been held to be sufficiently financial in character.

– Defamation claims can also be financial in e a a o c a s ca a so be a c acharacter.


• Hypo: Attorney hired by county claimed heHypo: Attorney hired by county claimed he was told would be hired in a “permanent” position but learned after relocating hisposition, but learned after relocating his residence that it was a “provisional” position. Upon termination for poor interpersonal skillsUpon termination for poor interpersonal skills, professionalism, and sense of judgment, attorney sued for fraud andattorney sued for fraud and misrepresentation.

Raising Govt. CodeRaising Govt. Code §§§§ 818.8 and 822.2818.8 and 822.2Raising Govt. Code Raising Govt. Code §§§§ 818.8 and 822.2818.8 and 822.2

• DemurrerDemurrer– § 818.8 – absolute immunity is highly susceptible to resolution on demurrerto resolution on demurrer.

– § 822.2 – a claim can only be stated against a public employee upon the pleading of specificpublic employee upon the pleading of specific facts establishing “actual fraud, corruption or actual malice,” and conclusory allegations are insufficient.

• Anti‐SLAPP

Discretionary Acts Discretionary Acts –– Govt. Code Govt. Code §§820.2 820.2

• “Except as otherwise provided by statute aExcept as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where theresulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him whether orof the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.”


• Applies to basic policymaking decisionsApplies to basic policymaking decisions• Does not apply to ministerial decisions• Employment• Employment

– Personnel decisions – Decisions to institute disciplinary proceedings– Decisions to institute disciplinary proceedings

• Student Discipline• Immunity Overrides FEHA Liability as to Public• Immunity Overrides FEHA Liability as to Public Employee, but not to the Public Entity


• Hypo: Members of a Board vote to terminateHypo: Members of a Board vote to terminate contract of Superintendent, who claims that the Board’s decision was based onthe Board s decision was based on discriminatory reasons in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing ActEmployment and Housing Act.

Board Member Immunity Board Member Immunity –– Govt. Code Govt. Code §§ 820.9820.9

• “Members of city councils, mayors, members of boards of supervisors, members of school boards, members of governing boards of other local public entities, members of locally appointed boards and y ppcommissions, and members of locally appointed or elected advisory bodies are not vicariously liable for injuries caused by the act or omission of the public j y f pentity or advisory body. Nothing in this section exonerates an official from liability for injury caused by that individual's own wrongful conduct. Nothing in this g gsection affects the immunity of any other public official.”

Adoption/Enforcement of Enactment Adoption/Enforcement of Enactment dd dd–– Govt. Code Govt. Code §§§§ 818.2 and 821818.2 and 821

• §818.2 – “A public entity is not liable for an§818.2 A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by adopting or failing to adopt an enactment or by failing to enforce any law.”

• §821 – “A public employee is not liable for an injury caused by his adoption of or failure to adopt an enactment or by his failure to enforce an enactment.”

• These statutes do not apply where there is a mandatory duty to perform an act.

Board ImmunitiesBoard ImmunitiesBoard ImmunitiesBoard Immunities

• Hypo: Student sues claiming to have sufferedHypo: Student sues claiming to have suffered bullying based on his religion and ethnicity. Student names individual board members andStudent names individual board members and alleges that the Board failed to enact policies addressing harassment and bullyingaddressing harassment and bullying.

Raising Board ImmunitiesRaising Board ImmunitiesRaising Board ImmunitiesRaising Board Immunities

• DemurrerDemurrer– Facts are rarely alleged supporting individual board member liabilityboard member liability

• In Limine MotionsExclude evidence of alleged failures to enact– Exclude evidence of alleged failures to enact policies and procedures

Design ImmunityDesign Immunity –– Govt. CodeGovt. Code §§ 830.6830.6Design Immunity Design Immunity Govt. Code Govt. Code §§ 830.6830.6

• “Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable under this chapter for an injury caused by the plan or design of a construction of, or an improvement to, public property where such plan or design has been approved in d f th t ti i t b thadvance of the construction or improvement by the

legislative body of the public entity or by some other body or employee exercising discretionary authority to give such approval if the trial or appellate court determines thatapproval . . ., if the trial or appellate court determines that there is any substantial evidence upon the basis of which (a) a reasonable public employee could have adopted the plan or design . . . or (b) a reasonable legislative body orplan or design . . . or (b) a reasonable legislative body or other body or employee could have approved the plan or design. . . .”


• “Notwithstanding notice that constructed or improved public property may no longer be in conformity with a plan or design or a standard which reasonably could be approved by the legislative body or other body or employee, the immunity provided by this section shall continue for a

bl i d f i ffi i i h bli i b ireasonable period of time sufficient to permit the public entity to obtain funds for and carry out remedial work necessary to allow such public property to be in conformity with a plan or design approved by the legislative body of the public entity In the event that the public entitylegislative body of the public entity . . . . In the event that the public entity is unable to remedy such public property because of practical impossibility or lack of sufficient funds, the immunity . . . shall remain so long as such public entity shall reasonably attempt to provide adequatelong as such public entity shall reasonably attempt to provide adequate warnings of the existence of the condition not conforming to the approved plan or design or to the approved standard. . . .”


• Provides immunity where a governmental bodyProvides immunity where a governmental body exercises the discretion given to it under the laws of the State in the planning and designing of public construction and improvements.

• Rationale: prevent a jury from second‐guessing the decision of a public entity by reviewing the identical questions of risk that had previously been considered by the government officers who adopted orby the government officers who adopted or approved the plan or design.


• Public entity has to prove: (1) causal nexusPublic entity has to prove: (1) causal nexus between design and accident; (2) discretionary approval of design beforediscretionary approval of design before construction; (3) substantial evidence supporting reasonableness of designsupporting reasonableness of design.

• Deferential standard: would any reasonable official have approved this design?official have approved this design?


• Injury producing feature must have been partInjury producing feature must have been part of the approved plan.

• Immunity can be lost by changed conditions• Immunity can be lost by changed conditions or notice – burden shifts to plaintiff.

P bli i ill b li bl d GC §§ 835835• Public entity can still be liable under GC §§ 835.835.

• How raised: can be very fact intensive. Usually determined on summary judgment, nonsuit or directed verdict.


• Hypo: Fall on city‐owned stairway. City'sHypo: Fall on city owned stairway. City s superintendent of maintenance had authority to approve design of handrail. Design immunity statute can apply even though design was shop drawing prepared by private fi F l fi di h blfirm. Factual finding that a reasonable employee could have adopted design was supported by substantial evidence Citysupported by substantial evidence. City immune from liability under design immunity statutestatute.


• Hypo: Landowners sued city and its engineerHypo: Landowners sued city and its engineer to recover damages from flooding due to road construction project. City not entitled to design immunity where it was not shown that the city council had approved the specific l h i h h hplans, where it was shown that there were

deviations from the original plan, and where part of the cause of the damage was not thepart of the cause of the damage was not the result of design defect but rather improper maintenance (negligence)maintenance (negligence).

Trail ImmunityTrail Immunity –– Govt. CodeGovt. Code §§ 831.4831.4Trail Immunity Trail Immunity Govt. Code Govt. Code §§ 831.4831.4

• “A public entity, public employee, or a grantor of a public easement to a public entity for any of the following purposes, is not liable for an injury caused by a condition of:(a) Any unpaved road which provides access to fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, riding, including animal and all types of vehicular riding, water sports, recreational or

i d hi h i t (1) it t t hi hscenic areas and which is not a (1) city street or highway or (2) county, state or federal highway or (3) public street or highway of a joint highway district, boulevard district, bridge and highway district or similar district formed for thebridge and highway district or similar district formed for the improvement or building of public streets or highways.(b) Any trail used for the above purposes.


• § 831.4(a) applies only to unpaved roads• § 831.4(b) applies to both paved and unpaved trails/paths used for any the purposes of “fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, riding, including animal andhunting, camping, hiking, riding, including animal and all types of vehicular riding, water sports, recreational or scenic areas”

• Paved and unpaved bicycle paths• Paved and unpaved bicycle paths• “Gateways” to the trails/paths are part of the trails/paths (e.g. gates, ramps, etc.)

• Immunity applies regardless of whether the injured person was using the property for recreation


• Hypo: pedestrian leaves a concrete sidewalkHypo: pedestrian leaves a concrete sidewalk and crosses an asphalt bike path. Pedestrian falls while walking across a ramp used to enterfalls while walking across a ramp used to enter and exit the bike path.


Bike Path Bike “Driveway” Pedestrian Walkway

Raising Trail ImmunityRaising Trail ImmunityRaising Trail ImmunityRaising Trail Immunity

• DemurrerDemurrer– If the “purpose” of the property appears in the Complaint or can somehow be judicially noticedComplaint, or can somehow be judicially noticed

• Summary JudgmentMay need to develop evidence to establish the– May need to develop evidence to establish the “purpose” of the property

Failure to Provide Police Protection Failure to Provide Police Protection ––ddGovt. Code Govt. Code §§ 845845

• “Neither a public entity nor a public employeeNeither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide ffi i li i i ”sufficient police protection service.”

• Immunity is meant to protect the budgetary d li i l d i i hi h i l d iand political decisions which are involved in

hiring and deploying a police force.

Failure to Provide Police Protection Failure to Provide Police Protection ––ddGovt. Code Govt. Code §§ 845845

• Hypo: student at a community college isHypo: student at a community college is attacked in a stairwell of a parking garage and alleges negligence in failing to protect studentalleges negligence in failing to protect student, dangerous condition of public property, and failure to provide adequate police protectionfailure to provide adequate police protection.

Raising Immunity for Failure to Provide Raising Immunity for Failure to Provide llPolice ProtectionPolice Protection

• Demurrer – if stated as a separate cause ofDemurrer if stated as a separate cause of action

• Motion to Strike if allegations intertwined• Motion to Strike – if allegations intertwined

• In Limine Motion

“Field Trip/Excursion” Immunity “Field Trip/Excursion” Immunity ‐‐ Ed. Ed. dd (d)(d)Code Code §§ 35330(d)35330(d)

• “All persons making the field trip or excursion pe so s a g t e e d t p o e cu s oshall be deemed to have waived all claims against the district, a charter school, or the State of

l f f d ll d hCalifornia for injury, accident, illness, or death occurring during or by reason of the field trip or excursion All adults taking out‐of‐state field tripsexcursion. All adults taking out‐of‐state field trips or excursions and all parents or guardians of pupils taking out‐of‐state field trips or excursions p p g pshall sign a statement waiving all claims.” (See 5 CCR §55220(h) for Community College Districts)


• “Field trip” is defined as a visit made by students p yand usually a teacher for purposes of firsthand observation (as to a factory, farm, clinic, museum) “Excursion” means a journey chieflymuseum). Excursion means a journey chiefly for recreation, a usual brief pleasure trip, departure from a direct or proper course, or d i ti f d fi it th ”deviation from a definite path.”– (1) “off‐premises” activity [meaning away from the home school campus]; p

– (2) voluntary participation; and – (3) activity that is not part of the school curriculum.


• Hypo: a student is injured playing in a bounceHypo: a student is injured playing in a bounce house during an end of the school year fair, attendance at which is not requiredattendance at which is not required– The fair is held on campus on the athletics field

The fair is held off campus at a nearby park– The fair is held off campus at a nearby park

Injuries to Students off School Injuries to Students off School d dd d //Property Property –– Ed. Code Ed. Code §§§§ 44808/8770644808/87706

• “Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, no school di t i t it t b d f d ti t i t d t fdistrict, city or county board of education, county superintendent of schools, or any officer or employee of such district or board shall be responsible or in any way liable for the conduct or safety of any pupil of the public schools at any time when such pupil is not on p p p y p pschool property, unless such district, board, or person has undertaken to provide transportation for such pupil to and from the school premises, has undertaken a school‐sponsored activity off the premises of such school has otherwise specificallyoff the premises of such school, has otherwise specifically assumed such responsibility or liability or has failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.In the event of such a specific undertaking, the district, board, or p g, , ,person shall be liable or responsible for the conduct or safety of any pupil only while such pupil is or should be under the immediate and direct supervision of an employee of such district or board.”


• Purpose is to limit a school district’s liability for u pose s to t a sc oo d st ct s ab ty oinjuries to pupils either before or after school hours while children are either going to school or

h f h lcoming home after school• Immunity is withdrawn only when the student is

h ld b d th h l’ di tor should be under the school’s direct supervision.

• An off campus “school sponsored activity” is• An off campus school sponsored activity is where attendance is part of the school curriculum.


• Hypo: after school was let out for the day aHypo: after school was let out for the day, a student is hit by a car while crossing a street located directly in front of school The streetlocated directly in front of school. The street is not on school property, and is located a mere few feet outside of District propertymere few feet outside of District property.

Mandated Reporter Immunity Mandated Reporter Immunity –– Pen. Pen. ddCode Code §§ 1117211172

• “(a) No mandated reporter shall be civilly or (a) o a dated epo te s a be c y ocriminally liable for any report required or authorized by this article, and this immunity shall

l f h d d d happly even if the mandated reporter acquired the knowledge or reasonable suspicion of child abuse or neglect outside of his or her professionalor neglect outside of his or her professional capacity or outside the scope of his or her employment.”p y

• This immunity is absolute, even if the report is proven to be false.

Miscellaneous ImmunitiesMiscellaneous ImmunitiesMiscellaneous ImmunitiesMiscellaneous Immunities

• Paul D. Coverdell Teacher Protection Act – 20 U.S.C. §6736

• Volunteer Protection Act – 42 U.S.C. §14503• Hazardous Recreational Activity Immunity Govt Code• Hazardous Recreational Activity Immunity – Govt. Code § 831.7

• Issuance or Revocation of License Immunity – Govt. C d §§ 818 4 d 821 2Code §§ 818.4 and 821.2

• Failure to Inspect Property Not Owned by Public Entity – Govt. Code §§ 818.6 and 821.4

• Immunity for Injury Caused by Act or Omission of Another Person – Govt. Code §820.8

Recognizing and Taking Advantage of Government … and Taking Advantage of GtGovernment IitiI ......

Documents

Transcript of Recognizing and Taking Advantage of Government … and Taking Advantage of GtGovernment IitiI ......