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 Texas, official immunity is a legal doctrine that protects government employees from being personally liable for actions taken in the course of their official duties, provided those actions are discretionary, performed in good faith, and within the scope of their authority. This immunity extends to the government employer as well, shielding it from vicarious liability. The rationale behind official immunity is to allow public officials to perform their functions without the fear of litigation over their decisions, which could lead to hesitation or intimidation, ultimately hindering their ability to serve the public effectively. Official immunity does not apply to ministerial acts, which are those actions that a law prescribes in a manner that leaves no room for the official's discretion or judgment. The distinction between discretionary and ministerial acts is crucial, as immunity applies only to the former. Discretionary acts require personal deliberation and decision-making, whereas ministerial acts involve following orders or procedures without the need for personal judgment.
