Effect of Administrative Officer’s Unreasonable Conduct or Malice

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.[i]  In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the court engages several steps.  The defendant must demonstrate that s/he was performing a discretionary function.  Thereafter, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the defendants violated a constitutional or statutory right; which was clearly established at the time; and of which a reasonable person would have known.[ii]

 

[i] Woodlock v. Orange Ulster B.O.C.E.S., 281 Fed. Appx. 66 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2008) 

[ii] Hardy v. Wood, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90014 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 30, 2008)


Inside Effect of Administrative Officer’s Unreasonable Conduct or Malice