MONTGOMERY, Ala. (Legal Newsline) - A couple who lost access to their children after a state worker falsified drug-test results can sue the social worker who relied on those tests to restrict their visitation rights, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled.
A trial court dismissed the lawsuit against Victoria Shaw, who argued she was protected by official immunity. But the Alabama Supreme Court, in an Aug. 19 opinion, said there was enough evidence to proceed with a lawsuit claiming Shaw participated in the fraud and deception of her colleague Brandy Murrah, who was subsequently convicted of repeatedly reporting false drug tests.
Angel Avendano and his ex-wife Sandy Knowles had two children who were in foster care when one of the foster parents suspected Knowles had been using illegal drugs during visits with her children. The Dale County Department of Human Resources launched an investigation, and Shaw asked Avendano and Knowles to submit to drug testing. Both tests came back positive for amphetamines.
The couple denied using drugs and had independent drug tests performed that came back negative, but Shaw rejected them and restricted their rights to see their children.
The couple sued after evidence of Murrah’s fraud emerged. “Although portions of their complaint are inartfully drafted,” the court said, “it appears that Avendano and Knowles have pleaded four claims against Shaw” including outrage, conspiracy and fraud. They also sought an injunction to remove any mention of their drug tests from state records.
The state Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the request for an injunction. But it reversed the rest of the dismissal. Shaw argued the case should be dismissed under state immunity because the plaintiffs didn’t claim she knew about Murrah’s fraud.
But plaintiffs don’t need to anticipate the state-immunity defense to survive summary dismissal, the court said. Shaw worked closely with Murrah and was present when she did the drug tests, the court said.
“Nothing about these allegations affirmatively rules out the possibility that Shaw acted maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond her authority, or under a mistaken interpretation of the law,” the court concluded.