 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Malone v. Special School District No. 112/6/2005
ision-making as making "choice between various alternatives"). Involving the judiciary in all of the decisions made in the management of students' behaviors is the very "second-guessing" that discretionary immunity is aimed at eliminating. Therefore, the district court did not err in its conclusion that the school district bore its burden to show it was protected by discretionary immunity.
Official immunity is designed to protect "public officials from the fear of personal liability that might deter independent action and impair effective performance of their duties." Elwood v. County of Rice, 423 N.W.2d 671, 678 (Minn. 1988). The government entity that employs the public official is entitled to share in the employee's immunity by way of vicarious official immunity. Olson v. Ramsey County, 509 N.W.2d 368, 372 (Minn. 1993). Although appellant argues that the school district intentionally disregarded his reports, the evidence does not support his claim. The incident forms show enforcement of discipline through dispositions ranging from meeting with intervenors and contacting parents to suspensions. Because professional judgments were exercised by the officials involved in the discipline of the students and the handling of the incident reports and because there is no basis for concluding they exercised it with malice, official immunity applies. See Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Sch. Dist. 11, 678 N.W.2d 651, 662 (Minn. 2004) (concluding that teacher's conduct was neither malicious nor willful).
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|