Friday, July 11, 2003 | 9:13 a.m.
CARSON CITY -- The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that further hearings are needed to determine if two Nevada state child welfare workers are immune from a lawsuit for placing a sexual predator into a foster home with two young children, one of whom was then molested.
A three-judge panel ruled earlier the two workers had "absolute immunity" from the suit, not only in their government capacity but individually.
But the full court overturned the panel decision Wednesday and ruled the case should go back to U.S. District Court Judge Howard McKibben for a hearing to determine if the duties of the two employees shielded them from suit.
The appeals court issued the ruling to comply with a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that sets the guidelines on how immunity should be applied in protecting government workers from suits.
Nancy Gammier, a social worker, and Fran Ziti, a social therapist, were employed by the state Division of Child and Family Services. The division removed a 14-year-old boy named Earl and his brother from a home where they were being sexually abused.
The division knew Earl had a history of sexual abuse but did not inform the foster parents when it placed the youngster into the home in Washoe County. The boy sexually molested the 9-year-old child of the foster parents three to five times. He was arrested and convicted.
The foster parents sued and the state settled with them for $325,000. Tonnie Savage, guardian of Earl, also sued, claiming the boy's civil rights were violated when he was placed in the home.
The suit named Gammier, who was responsible for the boy's case, and Zito, who provided therapy to Earl.
The Savage suit against the state and the two workers in their official capacity was dismissed because of immunity. But Savage, the guardian, continued the suit against the two workers in their individual capacity.
McKibben said hearings should be held to determine if the two should have that immunity. The workers appealed.
The full court Wednesday overturned the panel's decision and sent the case back to McKibben. It said the three-judge panel should not have relied on prior decisions of the circuit court but should have applied a ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
archive
