High Court Says Judge May Be Sued for Personnel Acts

WASHINGTON — Judges, like other government officials, may be sued for liability for their administrative and personnel decisions, the Supreme Court said Tuesday in a victory for women’s rights groups.

By a unanimous vote, the justices rejected the longstanding notion that judges are entirely immune for their official actions. Instead, the high court said, judges are immune only for their judicial rulings, not for their decisions involving employees who work for them.

The ruling reverses a federal appeals court in Chicago, which had said an Illinois state court judge could not be sued for sex discrimination by a fired female employee. Lawyers for women’s rights groups called the ruling important because they contend that sex discrimination is common in the nation’s court system.

NOW Legal Official Pleased

“I think it’s a great opinion. It recognizes that the whole purpose of judicial immunity was to protect the judicial process, not to protect a judge from sex discrimination charges in court administration,” said Marsha Levick, legal director for the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund.

In 1980 Cynthia Forrester, a juvenile probation officer, was fired by Illinois state Judge Howard Lee White and later filed suit, charging him with sex discrimination. A jury heard the evidence and awarded her nearly $82,000 in damages. But two years ago, a divided U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the judgment, ruling that the doctrine of judicial immunity put Judge White off limits to such a suit.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the court, disagreed. “Here, as in other contexts, immunity is justified and defined by the functions it protects and serves, not by the person to whom it attaches,” she said.

The court did not reinstate the jury verdict but ordered further lower court hearings to determine if White should get a new trial and whether he may claim limited immunity from the suit.

President ‘Absolutely Immune’

Members of Congress are immune from liability for their speeches and debates, she noted, but not for other official actions. Only the President is “absolutely immune” from paying legal damages resulting from his official actions, she said.

Although White must be immune from liability for his rulings in court, he is not immune when “acting in an administrative capacity,” O’Connor said.

Her opinion in the case (Forrester vs. White, 86-761) did not say whether the ruling covered federal as well as state court judges, although lawyers said the language appeared to apply to both.