Rather Than Immunity Standard for ‘Political Subdivision Employee’
2008-2183. Lambert v. Clancy, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1483.
Hamilton App. No. C-070600, 178 Ohio App.3d 403, 2008-Ohio-4905. Judgment of the court of appeals reversed, and cause remanded to the trial court.
Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., dissents and would dismiss the appeal as having been improvidently accepted.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-1483.pdf
View oral argument video of this case.
*[NOTE: Greg Hartmann, who held the office of Hamilton County Clerk of Courts at the time this lawsuit was initiated, has since been succeeded in office by Patricia M. Clancy. The case caption, which was Lambert v. Hartmann at the trial and appellate levels, has been amended to reflect Clancy as the successor defendant].
(April 8, 2010) The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that when the allegations contained in a civil complaint are directed against an office of a political subdivision, an officeholder named as a defendant in that complaint is sued in his or her official capacity, rather than as an individual.
In a 6-1 decision, the Court held further that when a named defendant in a civil action holds an elected office within a political subdivision, and that person is sued in his or her official capacity, claims against the officeholder are subject to the “political subdivision” immunity analysis set forth in R.C. 2774.02, rather than the “political subdivision employee” immunity standards set forth in R.C. 2744.03(A)(6). The majority opinion, which reversed a ruling by the 1st District Court of Appeals, was authored by Justice Robert R. Cupp.
From 1999 to 2004, as a matter of policy and practice, the Hamilton County Clerk of Court’s office published on its website every document filed with the office in its original and unredacted form, except for juvenile records and documents that were filed under seal. Among the documents posted on the clerk’s website was a traffic-violation citation issued in September 2003 to Cynthia Lambert. The ticket recorded Lambert’s name, signature, home address, birth date, driver’s license number, and Social Security Number. Lambert alleges that because of a transcription error on the ticket, an incorrect driver’s license number was posted on the website.
Lambert was notified in 2004 that suspicious credit activity was taking place in her name. She later learned that someone had made approximately $20,000 in unauthorized charges using Lambert’s personal information. The person was subsequently identified, arrested, and pleaded guilty to federal felony charges related to the theft of Lambert’s identity.
In December 2004 Lambert filed a civil lawsuit in federal district court asserting various state and federal claims and naming as defendants “Greg Hartmann, in his official capacity as Clerk of Courts,” and the “Hamilton County Board of County Commissioners.” In her complaint, Lambert claimed that the person who stole her identity had used the clerk of court’s website to obtain her personal information, because the personal information that was used to make the unauthorized charges included Lambert’s incorrect driver’s license number as posted on the county’s website.
The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that Lambert’s federal claims were not entitled to relief under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S. Code. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction over Lambert’s state claims. After the federal court’s disposition, Lambert filed a complaint in the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court alleging violation of Ohio’s privacy act, invasion of privacy, unlawful publication of private facts, and public nuisance. The sole defendant named in her state action was “Greg Hartmann, Hamilton County, Ohio Clerk of Courts.”
The common pleas court dismissed Lambert’s complaint without opinion, citing the Ohio rule of civil procedure that authorizes dismissal of a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Lambert appealed the dismissal order. The 1st District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. In its opinion, the court of appeals held that Lambert’s claims against Hartmann were not barred by R.C. Chapter 2744.03(A)(6), the provision in Ohio’s sovereign immunity statute applicable to employees of political subdivisions. The court also stated that “if the trial court dismissed Lambert’s claims because it believed that the clerk had immunity [under R.C. 2744.02, the provision applicable to claims against political subdivisions], the trial court erred.”
Hartmann, represented by the Hamilton County prosecutor’s office, sought and was granted Supreme Court review of the 1st District’s ruling. In today’s decision, Justice Cupp concluded that the immunity from civil liability conferred on “political subdivisions” by R.C. 2744.02 must also logically extend to the holder of a public office in a lawsuit where the plaintiff claims to have been injured by the actions or policies of that office.
He wrote: “(T)he allegations in the state-filed complaint pertain to the policies and practices of the clerk of court’s office and not to actions taken by Hartmann personally. For example, the complaint alleges that despite the known risks, ‘the Clerk of Court’s Office recklessly, willfully, and purposefully continued its practice of publishing personal information on the internet.’ In fact, some of the allegations pertain to policies and practices employed by the clerk of court’s office prior to the time Hartmann became the clerk of courts. Moreover, the allegations in the complaint filed in the state court mirror those in the complaint filed in the federal court, and the federal complaint was clearly against Hartmann in his official capacity. Thus, although Lambert’s prayer for relief in the state complaint asks for relief solely from Hartmann and not any public body or office, we conclude that Lambert’s complaint asserts claims against the office of the clerk of the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts, an elected position within a political subdivision held by Greg Hartmann at the time the complaint was filed.”
“(M)any of the governmental functions listed in R.C. 2744.01(C) are performed by political subdivisions through departments, agencies, and offices. When the departments, agencies, and offices perform their assigned governmental functions, each is an integral part and instrumentality of the political subdivision. An office of a clerk of courts is such an office and an instrumentality of a county political subdivision. By logical necessity, the immunity granted by statute to a political subdivision is also extended to the political subdivision’s departments, agencies, and offices, which implement the duties of the political subdivision.”
“As a natural extension of these principles, when allegations are made against the elected holder of an office of a political subdivision who is sued in an official capacity, the officeholder is also entitled to the grant of immunity contained in R.C. 2744.02. We recognize officeholders are employees of the political subdivision and that immunity for the actions of employees or officers sued in their individual capacities is addressed in another section of the Revised Code; R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) (detailing conditions when employees are personally immune from liability for actions taken). Here, however, the allegations contained in the complaint are ... directed against the office and against the named officeholder in the officeholder’s official capacity. This is the equivalent of suing the political subdivision rather than the officeholder in an individual or personal capacity.”
Justice Cupp’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Maureen O’Connor, Terrence O’Donnell and Judith Ann Lanzinger. Justice Paul E. Pfeifer dissented, stating that he would dismiss the appeal as having been improvidently accepted for review.
Contacts
Pamela J. Sears, 513.946.3082, for Greg Hartmann and successor Hamilton County Clerk of Courts Patricia M. Clancy.
Stacy A. Hinners, 513.621.9767, for Cynthia Lambert.
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment