Generally, administrative enforcement agencies perform multiple functions, all of which are not quasi-judicial. State administrative proceedings are sufficiently comparable to judicial proceedings to warrant the extension of immunity to an administrative hearing officer engaging in a function that is quasi-judicial in nature.[i] A person acting as an administrative officer is entitled to immunity, even though the officer may have erred in his/her function, as long as s/he did not act in the clear absence of all authority. An administrative officer performing a nondiscretionary ministerial task is not entitled to immunity.
When it is simply an adjunct of the duty to execute a mandatory statute, the rulemaking function is not a discretionary one. Moreover, when rules have no purpose except to give effect to the statutory policy, the agency is not immune from liability for its rulemaking decisions.[ii]
[i] Loran v. Iszler, 373 N.W.2d 870 (N.D. 1985).
[ii] Pendergrass v. State, 74 Or. App. 209, 702 P.2d 444 (1985).