## Facts

- Sammye R. Holloway’s husband took their two young children from Oklahoma in 1988; Holloway made repeated efforts over several years to locate them.
- In 1990, Ohio authorities found the father and children in Clermont County living in a car in unsanitary conditions and initiated child-protection proceedings.
- The Clermont County Department of Human Services (CCDHS) received temporary custody in late 1990; attempts to notify Holloway by mail failed, and service by publication was used in 1991.
- In 1992, Holloway learned the children were in Ohio and contacted CCDHS caseworker Sally Brush.
- While permanent custody proceedings were still pending, Holloway requested return of the children and sought involvement in the case.
- Holloway alleged Brush falsely told her that permanent custody had already been granted, failed to inform the juvenile court that Holloway had been located and wanted to participate, and did not facilitate Holloway’s involvement in the proceeding.
- On June 16, 1993, the juvenile court awarded permanent custody to CCDHS.
- Holloway sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for damages against Brush and Clermont County, claiming deprivation of constitutional rights connected to the termination of her parental rights.

## Issues

1. Whether a public child-services caseworker is entitled to absolute immunity from § 1983 damages liability for alleged misrepresentations to a parent and failure to inform the court of the parent’s reappearance during pending custody proceedings.
2. Whether the county may be liable under § 1983 for the caseworker’s alleged conduct absent evidence of a county policy or custom causing the constitutional violation.

## Decision

- The en banc court reversed summary judgment for Brush to the extent it rested on absolute immunity.
- The court held Brush was not entitled to absolute immunity for the alleged conduct because it was not performed in an advocacy role closely tied to the judicial phase of the custody proceeding.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for Clermont County because Holloway failed to show an official policy or custom that caused the alleged deprivation.

## Legal Principles

- Absolute immunity under § 1983 is determined by a functional test: it applies only to functions historically accorded absolute immunity and closely associated with the judicial process.
- Social workers may receive absolute immunity only for advocacy-type functions analogous to a prosecutor’s role in court (e.g., initiating proceedings, presenting evidence, testifying).
- Administrative or investigative activities by social workers, including out-of-court communications and case-management decisions, are not protected by absolute immunity (though qualified immunity may still be available).
- Municipal liability under § 1983 requires proof that an official policy or custom caused the violation; a municipality is not liable solely because it employs the alleged wrongdoer.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit limited absolute immunity for child-services caseworkers to narrow advocacy functions tied to judicial proceedings, allowing claims based on non-advocacy conduct to proceed against the individual caseworker, while rejecting municipal liability without evidence of an official county policy or custom.


Holloway v. Brush, 220 F.3d 767 (6th Cir. 2000) (en banc)