Attorney
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
On August 5, 2024, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a precedential decision in MFK ex rel. Kendrick v. Walker-Hackensack-Akeley ISD #113, addressing the doctrine of official immunity as applied to school districts. Official immunity, a notoriously nebulous legal concept, is designed to protect public employees from lawsuits and liability for discretionary actions performed in the course of their duties. Where the doctrine applies to an employee, their employer is generally found immune under the related doctrine of vicarious official immunity. The MFK decision offers further clarity to school districts regarding when decisions involving student supervision are considered discretionary and therefore immune from liability.
The case stemmed from an incident during a 2017 softball practice in which a nine‑year‑old student was struck on the head by a bat at a batting station, leaving her with a permanent bump on her forehead. Nearly six years later, her family sued the school district and the softball coaches, alleging the coaches negligently supervised the practice. The school district moved for summary judgment, arguing it was entitled to vicarious official immunity because the coaches’ decisions about how to supervise the practice were discretionary and therefore protected by official immunity. The district court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the doctrine applied to bar the action against the school district.
As the Court of Appeals explained, official immunity applies when a public employee’s actions involve the exercise of significant judgment or discretion. The purpose is to protect public officials from fear of personal liability that could deter them from exercising independent judgment and impair performance of their duties. In contrast, the doctrine does not apply where the employee is merely performing “ministerial” duties, meaning fixed or mandatory obligations. Where an action was discretionary, official immunity shields the individual from suit unless their actions were willful or malicious.
In this case, the Court of Appeals concluded that the coaches exercised discretionary judgment in supervising the practice. Key to that determination was the testimony of the lead coach, who described the various decisions she made about how to organize and supervise the practice. These decisions included where to locate practice stations and how many to set up, how many players to place at each station based on their age and ability, and where to position the coaches to provide sufficient supervision. The coach determined that proper supervision could be achieved without constant eyes-on observation by ensuring “all players [could] be observed with a turn of the head.” From these circumstances, the court concluded the coach’s “supervision was not merely the execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts . . . but rather involved uncertain circumstances that required the weighing of competing values and the exercise of significant, independent judgment and discretion.”
The court also emphasized the absence of specific school policies dictating how practices were to be supervised. Without rigid protocols in place, the coach was required to rely on her professional judgment to manage practice safely. This lack of fixed rules or policies further supported the conclusion that the coach’s actions were discretionary.
After determining that the coach was entitled to official immunity, the court extended vicarious official immunity to the school district. Courts apply vicarious official immunity “when failure to grant it would focus stifling attention on an official’s performance to the serious detriment of that performance.” Reasoning that “near-constant” independent judgment and discretion is required during athletic practices—and especially those where students outnumber the supervising adults—the Court of Appeals held that failing to apply official immunity to the school district would disincentivize individuals from holding coaching positions.
MFK provides much needed guidance for school districts regarding when supervisory decisions will be deemed discretionary and thus protected by official immunity. Notably, the Minnesota Supreme Court has denied the family’s request for further review of the case, leaving the Court of Appeals’ ruling as the final word on the matter. The decision underscores the value of balancing clear guidance with the need for flexibility in circumstances involving the supervision of students, including sports practices and other student activities. District policies should avoid prescribing unnecessary detail in areas requiring employee judgment, as doing so could inadvertently limit the protections afforded by official immunity. School districts should consult with their legal counsel to ensure policies and procedures align with these principles and maximize available legal protections.
This article is intended to provide general information with commentary. It should not be relied on as legal advice. If required, legal advice regarding this topic should be obtained from district legal counsel.
Shannon M. Smith is an attorney with the law firm of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered. For more information, please contact her at (612) 337-9302 or ssmith@kennedy-graven.com.
© Shannon M. Smith (2024). Used by permission.