BlogLine

School handbook policies: Ministerial or discretionary? 

4/28/25

By: Wayne S. Melnick and Xander D. Melnick

When does a school handbook policy create a ministerial duty versus a discretionary duty under an official immunity analysis? The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed that question in Wilson v. Anderson, No. A24A1331, — S.E.2d —, 2025 WL 749707 (Ga. Ct. App. March 10, 2025). Interestingly, the Court of Appeals may have overlooked a crucial step in its analysis. 

The dispute arose from a tragic incident at Ola Middle School in Henry County, where a student, A.L., was stabbed multiple times by a classmate, C.S., after prior warnings of danger were allegedly ignored by school administrators. Ashley Wilson, the mother of A.L., sued the school’s principal and two vice principals, asserting claims of negligence for failing to investigate C.S.’s known threats and possession of a knife. The administrators moved to dismiss the lawsuit, citing official immunity. 

The trial court agreed with the administrators and dismissed the case, concluding that they were shielded by official immunity. On appeal, however, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling, reigniting questions surrounding the scope of official immunity in public school settings. 

Prior holdings from the Georgia appellate courts determined that a ministerial duty is “simple, absolute and definite,” arising under specific conditions with no room for discretion. In contrast, discretionary acts involve personal judgment. In Grammens v. Dollar, the court held that when a school policy requires the public official to exercise discretion in its implementation, the policy does not require the performance of a ministerial duty. Here, like in Grammens, the school handbook created a duty contingent upon an ambiguous term, such that it required school officials to exercise personal deliberation and judgment regarding the applicability of the dictates of the policy. Thus, it would stand to reason that the policy created a discretionary duty pursuant to Grammens. The Wilson court disagreed.

In Wilson, the appellate court acknowledged the administrators’ alleged failure to act on explicit threats but did not clearly analyze whether this failure stemmed from a breach of ministerial duties outlined by established policies or procedures. Under Grammens, the Wilson court should have evaluated whether the administration was required to utilize their discretion to determine whether the report of the knife on campus met the definition of bullying. Instead, the Wilson court skipped this step of the analysis and focused on the way the policy’s task was accomplished – even while citing Grammens in a footnote. This omission leaves critical questions unanswered about the precise nature of the administrators’ duties and whether those duties were defined in a manner that precluded discretion. 

The Wilson decision underscores the evolving challenges in applying official immunity to public officials, especially in the education sector. For school administrators and public officials, the case serves as a reminder of the potential liability risks tied to credible threats against student safety. It also highlights the need for clear, documented policies that delineate ministerial duties to avoid ambiguity in litigation. 

For legal practitioners, this ruling serves as a cautionary example of the need to rigorously argue the applicability of Grammens and its progeny in cases involving public officials. The lack of a detailed ministerial-versus-discretionary analysis in Wilson leaves open the possibility of further appeals and emphasizes the importance of establishing facts early in litigation. 

If you have any questions about the Wilson case or education and immunity claims, please contact attorney Wayne S. Melnick at wayne.melnick@fmglaw.com or Xander D. Melnick at xander.melnick@fmglaw.com, both practicing in FMG’s Government Law Section.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and are not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.