Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governmental Immunity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate passes immunity amendments after floor debate about civil-rights exposure
Summary
Senate Bill 207 passed the Senate after floor debate over whether it would broaden or narrow liability for state employees under federal civil-rights law; the sponsor and legislative research staff said the bill indemnifies employees except for gross negligence, while critics warned it could open exposure to punitive damages in some cases.
Senate Bill 207, which amends the Governmental Immunity Act, passed the Utah Senate after questions about its scope and interaction with federal civil-rights law.
Sponsor remarks explained the bill is intended to close a perceived gap so that state employees are indemnified by the state for acts performed within scope of duty except where behavior is malicious or fraudulent. Supporters said Legislative Research confirmed the change only removes a narrow potential exposure and that the state would assume defense and potential liability in certain cases.
Opponents raised the prospect that the bill might expand the state’s exposure to punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (federal civil-rights statute) because federal courts can award punitive damages in civil-rights cases, and the state cannot unilaterally immunize itself from federal awards. Those senators urged caution and asked for clarifying language and fiscal analysis.
After floor discussion, the Senate voted on SB 207. The clerk announced the recorded result on the floor as “SB 207 shows 18 ayes, 5 nays, 6 being absent; the bill passes.” The bill was sent to the House for its further action.
What this means: The bill, as passed by the Senate, changes state indemnification and immunity language; whether that will alter the state’s exposure in federal court depends on judicial interpretation of the interplay between state indemnification and federal punitive-damages awards.
Key quote: Senator Barlow observed the change is “far reaching” and asked for clarification; sponsor replied legislative research assured the change was narrow.
