zlacker

If a DMV agent is depriving you of your rights or mistreating you in some tortious way, why shouldn't you be able to sue that DMV agent? I'm not necessarily against government offices providing legal services to help defend their employees (AFAIK that's common for public school teachers and employees), but why shouldn't you be able to sue the person who is committing the tortious act?

>>baddox+(OP)
As a taxpayer, I'd much prefer individual DMV agents being sued and having to defend themselves, compared to the DMV itself being sued and my tax money being used in its defense.

>>baddox+(OP)
Qualified immunity wouldn't protect a DMV agent (or other bureaucrat) depriving you of your rights in violation of the law.

It only protects a government employee who makes a discretionary decision as part of their normal duties. This might mean they get it wrong, but if they can show their decision was reasonable and (where relevant) pursuant to a process established by the agency, that's fine. In that case, the problem is the process not the employee, and so the proper defendant is the agency not the employee that is simply following procedures set forth by the agency.

>>nerdpo+I2
Would you prefer that individual programmers be sued (instead of their employers) and have to defend themselves when apps/programs crash due to bugs?

Because that's basically what you're saying you want.

And anyways, if the DMV agent was acting in their capacity as a DMV employee and following established procedure, the DMV would end up paying their legal costs and settlements against the employee anyways...but without getting a say in the defense against the underlying lawsuit.

>>baddox+(OP)
Because that agent is acting on the authority of the DMV, and the DMV is responsible for how their authority is wielded. The intent is to keep organizations from facing repercussions for bad behavior by just throwing the individual actors under the bus. Of course this only works out if the organization itself can be held accountable, and forced to properly deal with internal troubles.

>>nerdpo+I2
It's an interesting problems. Doctors have liability insurance for this reason basically, which just pushes healthcare costs even higher, and creates this very opaque system of accountability and care quality.

>>nerdpo+I2
Your position is really contrary to your interests.

DMV agents are probably not very wealthy. By suing them you would simply drive an underpaid worker into bankruptcy and probably never get much money back.

Meanwhile, the DMV can easily scapegoat it's employee and never reform or make any systematic changes. Furthermore you would have no recourse to sue them directly since they can just keep hiring more poor workers to be thrown under the bus.

Ultimately the tax payers (or voters) need to keep the DMV accountable. There is no alternative. Democracy doesn't have shortcuts. The tax payers have to pay when the government screws up. More to the point - the tax payer ALWAYS ends up paying when the government screws up, without exception, 100% of the time. Either they pay by having a corrupt DMV that hurts society and everyone at large, or they pay through lawsuits and higher costs at the DMV.