## Facts

- Rosemary Trawick was a Dallas County Department of Human Resources (DHR) social worker whose duties included investigating and processing licenses for child day-care facilities.
- James and Emma Anderson applied for a license to operate a family day-care facility; Trawick was assigned to investigate eligibility and, if appropriate, award the license.
- DHR issued a license effective January 1, 2000, for Miss Emma’s Day Care Home; the license was renewed in 2002.
- After the facility began operating, a complaint was made to DHR alleging that James Anderson had sexually molested a child (Mary B.’s granddaughter); Trawick learned of the complaint through her work.
- Before June 2000, Rhonda V. contacted DHR to ask whether Miss Emma’s was licensed and whether any complaints or allegations had been made against the facility or its employees.
- Rhonda spoke with Trawick, who stated that Miss Emma’s was licensed and that no one had filed complaints and no employees had been accused of improper conduct; she also made favorable comments about the staff.
- Relying on those statements, Fred and Rhonda V. enrolled their children at Miss Emma’s.
- After the 2002 renewal, James Anderson was arrested and charged with sexually abusing Fred and Rhonda’s child and Mary B.’s granddaughter.
- Fred and Rhonda sued multiple defendants, including Trawick in her individual and official capacities, alleging negligent licensing and failure to warn (including misrepresentation) about the prior abuse complaint.
- The trial court denied Trawick’s summary-judgment motion asserting state-agent immunity; Trawick petitioned for mandamus relief.

## Issues

1. Whether Trawick was entitled to state-agent immunity for claims based on her licensing and license-renewal functions for Miss Emma’s Day Care Home.
2. Whether Trawick was entitled to state-agent immunity for claims based on her statements to Rhonda V. that no complaints or accusations existed despite Trawick’s awareness of a prior sexual-abuse complaint.
3. Whether mandamus should issue directing the trial court to grant summary judgment on all claims against Trawick based on immunity.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court granted the mandamus petition in part, denied it in part, and issued the writ.
- The Court directed the trial court to enter summary judgment for Trawick on claims predicated solely on her licensing and renewal activities.
- The Court declined to compel summary judgment on claims based on Trawick’s alleged affirmative misrepresentations to Rhonda V.; those claims were allowed to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- State-agent immunity protects a state employee from personal-capacity civil liability when the employee is exercising judgment in the administration of a governmental department or agency, including discretionary licensing-related functions.
- Immunity does not apply if the employee acts willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond authority, or under a mistaken interpretation of law.
- For immunity purposes, courts distinguish between discretionary licensing judgments and affirmative factual representations made to the public; the latter may fall outside protected functions when evidence supports misrepresentation or other disqualifying conduct.
- Mandamus is an available vehicle to review the denial of summary judgment grounded on state-agent immunity, but relief requires a clear legal right to immunity on the specific conduct challenged.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Trawick was immune from personal liability for her discretionary licensing and renewal decisions, but she was not entitled at the summary-judgment stage to immunity from claims based on alleged affirmative misstatements to a parent about the absence of prior abuse complaints, so mandamus issued only as to the licensing-based claims.


Ex parte Trawick, 959 So. 2d 51 (Ala. 2006)