Forrester v. White
484 U.S. 219 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A judge is not entitled to absolute immunity from a civil damages lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for administrative decisions, such as demoting and firing a subordinate employee, because such actions are not considered 'judicial acts' but rather administrative functions.
Facts:
- Howard Lee White, an Illinois state circuit judge, had the authority to hire and fire probation officers.
- In April 1977, Judge White hired Cynthia A. Forrester to serve as an adult and juvenile probation officer.
- Forrester's duties included preparing presentence reports, making recommendations in juvenile cases, and supervising individuals on probation.
- In July 1979, Judge White promoted Forrester to a supervisory position.
- In the summer of 1980, Judge White demoted Forrester back to a nonsupervisory position.
- On October 1, 1980, Judge White discharged Forrester from her job.
- Forrester alleged that her demotion and discharge were motivated by sex discrimination.
Procedural Posture:
- Cynthia Forrester filed a lawsuit against Judge Howard Lee White in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Forrester on her § 1983 claim, awarding her compensatory damages.
- The District Court granted Judge White's motion for a new trial, holding that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
- The District Court subsequently granted Judge White's motion for summary judgment, ruling that he was entitled to absolute judicial immunity.
- Forrester, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Judge White, the appellee.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state-court judge have absolute immunity from a damages lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the administrative decision to demote and discharge a probation officer?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
No. A state-court judge does not have absolute immunity from a damages lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the administrative decision to demote and discharge a probation officer. The Court employs a 'functional' approach, where immunity is justified by the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor. Absolute judicial immunity protects only adjudicative acts—those involving the resolution of disputes between parties—to ensure judges can make impartial decisions without fear of being sued by disgruntled litigants. In contrast, personnel decisions like hiring and firing are administrative functions, not judicial ones. These administrative decisions are not meaningfully different from those made by officials in the executive branch, who are not entitled to absolute immunity for similar actions. The Court rejected the argument that the threat of lawsuits from disgruntled employees would improperly influence judicial decision-making, finding the danger not great enough to warrant the 'strong medicine' of absolute immunity.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of absolute judicial immunity by reinforcing the 'functional' approach. It establishes a clear distinction between a judge's adjudicative role, which is fully protected by immunity, and their administrative role as an employer, which is not. By holding that personnel decisions are not 'judicial acts,' the Court placed judges on the same footing as other public officials for employment matters, thereby opening them up to liability for claims such as employment discrimination. This precedent ensures that court employees have a legal remedy for civil rights violations committed by their judicial employers, balancing the need for judicial independence with the protection of individual rights.
Unlock the full brief for Forrester v. White