Official immunity is an affirmative defense that protects a governmental employee from personal liability and, in doing so, preserves a governmental employer's sovereign immunity from suit for vicarious liability. A governmental employee is entitled to official immunity for the good-faith performance of discretionary duties within the scope of the employee's authority.
Common law official immunity is based on the necessity of public officials to act in the public interest with confidence and without the hesitation that could arise from having their judgment continually questioned by extended litigation. The public would suffer if government officials, who must exercise judgment and discretion in their jobs, were subject to civil lawsuits that second-guessed their decisions.
Denying the affirmative defense of official immunity to public officials in such circumstances would contribute not to principled and fearless decision-making but to intimidation. Certainly, public officials may err in the performance of their duties.
The existence of immunity acknowledges this fact, but recognizes that the risk of some error is preferable to intimidation from action at all. In addition, some of the most capable candidates would be deterred from entering public service if heavy burdens on their private resources from monetary liability were a likely prospect for errors in judgment.
Thus, government employees are entitled to official immunity from suits arising from the performance of their (1) discretionary duties in (2) good faith as long as they are (3) acting within the scope of their authority.
A Governmental Employee's Discretionary Governmental Acts Are Generally Cloaked With Immunity But Ministerial Acts Are Not
As a general rule, official immunity from suit attaches to a government employee's official actions only when that employee's job requires the exercise of personal judgment and discretion. On the other hand, a government employee's performance of duties that are merely ministerial in nature is not cloaked with official immunity.
Ministerial acts are those for which the law prescribes and defines the duty to be performed with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment. If the public official must obey an order, without having any choice in complying, the act is ministerial. If an action involves personal deliberation, decision, and judgment, however, it is discretionary.
The distinction between these two categories is often one of degree because any official act that is ministerial will still require the actor to use some discretion in its performance.
In California, official immunity serves as an affirmative defense that shields government employees from personal liability when performing discretionary duties in good faith within their authority. This legal principle is rooted in the need for public officials to make decisions in the public interest without fear of litigation. Official immunity applies to discretionary acts, which require personal judgment and decision-making, as opposed to ministerial acts, which are strictly defined by law and leave no room for discretion. Discretionary acts are protected by official immunity because they involve personal deliberation and choice, whereas ministerial acts are not protected since they require adherence to specific instructions without the need for personal judgment. The rationale behind this immunity is to encourage competent individuals to serve in public roles without the fear of personal financial liability for honest mistakes, thereby promoting principled and confident decision-making in government.
