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 Illinois, official immunity is a legal doctrine that protects government employees from personal liability 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 is rooted in the principle that public officials should be able to perform their duties without fear of litigation, which could hinder their ability to make decisions in the public interest. Discretionary acts, which require personal judgment and decision-making, are generally protected by official immunity. However, ministerial acts, which are strictly defined by law and leave no room for personal discretion, are not covered by this immunity. The rationale behind this distinction is to balance the need for accountable government with the need to protect officials from undue interference when performing their duties. It is important to note that while official immunity provides significant protection, it is not absolute and does not shield officials from liability in all circumstances, particularly when actions are taken in bad faith or outside the scope of their authority.
