Summary
The Supreme Court of Arizona held that the State was not entitled to absolute immunity for allegedly negligent processing of a particular teacher-certification application. The court distinguished fundamental governmental policy decisions, which receive absolute immunity, from operational licensing decisions, which receive only qualified immunity under A.R.S. § 12-820.02. It vacated the court of appeals' opinion, reversed the superior court's dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether A.R.S. § 12-820.01 affords the State absolute immunity for processing and approving a particular teacher's certification application.
- Whether the State's certification activities constituted fundamental governmental policy determinations or operational application of established licensing procedures.
- Whether dismissal of Doe's claims against the State for absolute immunity was proper.
Holdings
- The State's processing of a particular teaching-certification application in accordance with established procedures does not involve the determination of fundamental governmental policy and is not protected by absolute immunity under A.R.S. § 12-820.01.
- The State's processing of the individual application is protected, at most, by qualified immunity under A.R.S. § 12-820.02; recovery therefore requires proof of gross negligence because the complaint alleges negligent conduct.
Key quotations
“We conclude that the most reasonable interpretation of the legislative actions that led to the language of sections 12-820.01 and 12-820.02 is that the legislature intended to provide absolute immunity for fundamental governmental policy determinations involving the licensing of professions and occupations, while according only qualified immunity to particular decisions to grant or revoke licenses.” (200 Ariz. 174, 180, ¶ 9)
“The superior court erred in dismissing Doe's complaint on grounds of absolute immunity.” (200 Ariz. 174, 184, ¶ 15)
Factual background
A teacher, Kenneth R. Graham, allegedly molested Doe's minor son. Graham had reported a disorderly-conduct conviction on an application for a substitute teaching certificate but answered no when a later teaching-certificate application asked the same question. Doe alleged that the State negligently or grossly negligently processed and approved Graham's certification application.
Procedural history
Jane Doe sued the Gilbert Unified School District and the Arizona Department of Education, alleging negligent certification of a teacher and negligent failure to protect her son. After the State was substituted for the Department of Education, the superior court dismissed the claims against the State under A.R.S. § 12-820.01. The court of appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court of Arizona vacated the court of appeals' opinion, reversed the superior court's order, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The superior court was directed to conduct further proceedings consistent with the opinion after considering the claims without applying absolute immunity to the State's processing of the particular teaching-certification application.