Supreme Court Shields Local Officials From Suits

Local officials cannot be sued for the laws they pass, even if they deliberately violate the civil rights or liberties of others, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The unanimous decision overturns a $231,000 verdict won by a black woman who was subjected to racial slurs by a co-worker and then had her job eliminated by the City Council after she complained.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said the motives of the city officials did not matter. What counts is whether the officials took legislative action.

“Local legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from liability for their legislative activities,” Thomas wrote.

In this case, the mayor and the City Council of Fall River, Mass., passed a bill that eliminated the small Department of Health and Human Services, which was headed by Janet Scott-Harris, the first African American to work for the city. This move, Thomas said, “bore all the hallmarks of traditional legislation.”

Tuesday’s ruling came as no surprise to lawyers who specialize in government liability. In the past, the court ruled that state and regional lawmakers cannot be sued for the laws they pass. The new decision makes clear that the same immunity extends to members of city councils and county boards.

A U.S. appeals court in Bosto. had upheld the damage verdict against Fall River Mayor Daniel Bogan and council member Marilyn Roderick on grounds that the dismissal was administrative, not legislative.

But the high court rejected that distinction and said lawmakers are shielded for everything that comes within “the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.”

“Regardless of the level of government, the exercise of legislative discretion should not be inhibited . . . by a fear of personal liability,” Thomas wrote in the case (Bogan vs. Scott-Harris, 96-1569).

The decision follows the consistent pattern of the high court under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Over more than a decade, it has narrowed the scope of civil rights laws and protected the prerogatives of state and local officials.

After she was dismissed, Scott-Harris sued city officials under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which allows damage claims against people whose civil rights are violated by those acting under color of law.

She had been named a city administrator in 1987, but later ran afoul of a longtime, well-connected white female employee who called her a “black bitch” and worse. Scott-Harris complained about this racial harassment, and the white woman was suspended for 60 days. But the white employee complained to the mayor and city officials and was apparently instrumental in having Scott-Harris’ job eliminated.

A jury agreed that the City Council members had dismissed her because of racial bias and in retaliation for speaking out about it. The U.S. appeals court in Boston said the city itself could not be held liable, but it upheld the $231,000 in damages against the two officials.

That judgment was reversed by the high court Tuesday.

A lawyer for Scott-Harris said he was disappointed but not surprised by the outcome.

“I think the court looked at this more intellectually than practically,” said Harvey A. Schwartz of Boston. “This decision writes a manual for how to violate the rights of someone and to get away with it.” He said his client found a job with the federal government soon after leaving her city post.

Meanwhile, the court made it easier for doctors and others who are hit with personal injury claims to escape their debts through bankruptcy. Under the law, debtors cannot escape claims resulting for a “willful and malicious injury.”

But in a unanimous ruling, the court allowed a doctor to void a $355,000 malpractice verdict because his mistakes arose from negligence, not willful intent (Kawaauhau vs. Geiger, 97-115).