High Court Lets Stand Social Worker Immunity

Over dissents by Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court on Monday let stand a ruling that makes social workers immune from being sued, even if they wrongly accuse a parent of sexually abusing his or her child.

On a 7-2 vote, the justices refused to hear an appeal from a Lexington, Ky., man who was stripped of his rights to see his daughter based on an allegation by two state social workers that he had abused the child.

Neither social worker spoke to the girl before filing the charge, but a judge--without giving the father a chance to respond--ordered visitation rights cut off.

The father, Ian Hoffman, was also arrested and indicted on a charge of child sexual abuse based on the allegation, which began with his ex-wife, Melisa. But a jury quickly cleared him of the charge, and in a separate proceeding, a judge awarded him permanent custody of the child.

Hoffman then filed a damage suit contending that his constitutional rights had been violated by the state officials. Under federal civil rights law, “Every person who under color (of state law) subjects . . . any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured.”

The Supreme Court has granted a legal immunity to some officials acting under state law, including all judges and prosecutors in the courtroom. The justices have said that the court system could not operate if prosecutors, judges or witnesses could be sued for their courtroom statements.

In recent years, the lower courts have split over whether social workers can be sued. The issue has arisen often in bitter disputes over whether children can be taken away from their parents.

In Hoffman’s case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed his suit and ruled that social workers, like prosecutors, are entitled to “absolute immunity from liability.” This rule of immunity “ensures that they (social workers) are not deterred from vigorously performing their jobs as they might if they feared personal liability.”

The California-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has adopted the same rule, but courts in Colorado, Texas and Delaware have said that social workers can be sued in some instances.

Only Thomas and Scalia voted to hear the appeal in Hoffman vs. Harris, 93-1044.

“I am not convinced that social workers, who are often involved in civil family welfare proceedings, can ever function as prosecutors for purposes of immunity analysis,” Thomas wrote in a four-page dissent. While the court’s refusal to hear the appeal is not a binding rule, it strongly suggests that the justices support the immunity.