holding that the decision not to retain a teacher for the next school year was a discretionary function for which the defendants possessed qualified immunity
How later courts described this case
- holding that the decision not to retain a teacher for the next school year was a discretionary function for which the defendants possessed qualified immunity
- affirming dismissal of tort claims against school board employees sued in their official capacities on basis that they were entitled to sovereign immunity
- school board employees are entitled to sovereign immunity in their representative capacities
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I respectfully dissent and refer the reader to my views expressed in my dissent in Bell v. Chisom , 421 So.2d 1239 (Ala. 1982). I would hold that the party seeking recovery of one who has a defense based upon the immunity doctrine must negate in the complaint the cloak of immunity that would be presumed to exist with regard to state employees. Further, I would hold that a state employee engaged in a discretionary function should be sued in a representative capacity, thus causing liability for the payment of any judgment to rest upon the agency or department of the state for which the individual is performing the services out of which the liability to the plaintiff arose.