A Georgia Court of Appeals decision will now stand after the Georgia Supreme Court declined on Tuesday, July 1, to review the case. The ruling has serious implications for the doctrine of official immunity for K-12 employees and other public officials. Two justices dissented from the decision not to review the case.
Several months ago in Wilson v. Anderson, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a lawsuit against school administrators who allegedly failed to investigate knife threats made by a student who later stabbed another student, according to court documents. The court ruled that the administrators were not entitled to official immunity because their duty to investigate bullying reports, as stated in the school district’s own handbook, constituted a ministerial duty — meaning the decision whether to investigate was not left to their discretion.
The decision establishes that while officials have discretion in developing policies and deciding how to conduct an investigation, if a policy requires an investigation under specified circumstances, the act of starting the investigation is a ministerial duty. As a result, the doctrine of official immunity may not protect school administrators who conduct no investigation at all.
What This Means for School Districts
This case should serve as a clear signal to superintendents, principals, and other administrators that ignoring a report of bullying or threats could lead to personal exposure, despite Georgia’s broad protections for discretionary acts. The court made several important findings:
- A policy requiring an investigation creates a ministerial duty to initiate an investigation, even if administrators can still exercise judgment on how best to conduct that investigation.
- When a threat involves weapons or physical harm, the failure to investigate can lead to personal liability for administrators, overriding the usual protections of official immunity.
- A student handbook provision can impose a ministerial duty on administrators if it specifically requires action, such as an investigation, following a report. Wilson suggests the policy need not specify how or when to start the investigation to create a ministerial duty.
Districts should keep in mind that policies can and will be used to measure whether staff performed legally required steps after threats or reports of bullying. School leaders cannot assume immunity will automatically protect them if they fail to act on such reports.
More broadly, Wilson may open a new avenue for plaintiffs to pierce school employees' official immunity. The decision suggests that a single discretionary duty is divided in separate components — "initiation" and "execution" — each with a different outcome for immunity. Under that reading, the mere failure to perform a discretionary task, by itself, would violate the ministerial duty to begin that task. Although Wilson concerns a duty to investigate, its initiation-versus-execution view of official immunity arguably would extend to other discretionary conduct.
Next Steps for School Leaders
In light of this ruling, Georgia K-12 administrators should consider the following steps:
- Any policies that mandate internal investigations or other actions under specified circumstances should now include language stating that the decision whether to initiate an investigation or not is left to the sound discretion of district officials.
- Review existing student handbooks and board policies to confirm they match current practice and clearly define investigative duties for administrators and other employees. Internal policies should specify precisely who has the duty to investigate rather than placing a general duty to investigate on a school administration.
- Train building-level leaders on what triggers a mandatory investigation, especially under bullying or harassment policies.
- Document all reports of threats or bullying and maintain records of how and when investigations were initiated and completed. If no investigation was conducted, the reason should also be documented.
- Revisit communications with school resource officers to ensure timely sharing of safety-related information.
- Consult legal counsel if there are ambiguities in policies about threat investigations.
Final Takeaways
While Georgia law still provides administrators with robust immunity protections for discretionary decisions, Wilson v. Anderson makes clear that if a district policy creates a general duty to investigate, failure to carry out that step exposes school leaders to personal lawsuits.
Administrators should proactively align their policies, training, and practices to ensure they meet not just the letter but the intent of their school safety obligations.
[View source.]
