Alexander v. City of Bessemer

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court partially granted and partially denied a petition for a writ of mandamus arising from a dispute over the City of Bessemer's refusal to pay a former city councillor's criminal-defense legal expenses. The Court held that municipal immunity barred the plaintiffs' bad-faith claim against the City. It declined to dismiss the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 racial-discrimination claim against the individual councillors because legislative immunity was not established and qualified immunity required further factual development.

Holdings

1. The City is immune from the alleged bad-faith claim because the claim is in the nature of an intentional tort, and Ala. Code § 11-47-190 does not create an exception to municipal immunity for intentional or malicious acts.
2. The City councillors did not establish entitlement to absolute legislative immunity at the mandamus stage because the challenged refusal to pay Alexander's individual legal expenses was not shown to involve legislative facts or the establishment of a general policy.
3. The City councillors did not establish entitlement to qualified immunity in the mandamus proceeding because the fact-specific inquiry into their motivations and lawful reasons for refusing payment required consideration of matters outside the pleadings and was more appropriately addressed on summary judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the City is immune from Alexander and White, Arnold & Dowd's bad-faith claim seeking payment of Alexander's legal expenses.
2. Whether the City councillors were entitled to absolute legislative immunity from the plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 racial-discrimination claim based on their refusal to approve payment of Alexander's legal expenses.
3. Whether the City councillors were entitled to qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage on the § 1983 racial-discrimination claim.

Disposition

writ_granted