Editing Harlow v. Fitzgerald

{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=Supreme Court of the United States
|date=June 1982
|subject=Administrative Law
|facts=Fitzgerald (plaintiff) is dismissed after giving a testimony to the U.S. Congress. At the testimony hearing, he complains about cost overruns.

Fitzgerald files a complaint with the United States Civil Service Commission. The examiner at the Civil Service Commission found that the re-organization at the Air Force was impermissible. The dismissal of Fitzgerald occurred improperly. However, the examiner didn't regard Fitzgerald's termination as retaliatory.
|procedural_history=Fitzgerald filed a federal lawsuit for damages (monetary award for the harm he suffered). He alleged that the Nixon administration officials including Bryce Harlow (defendant) had deprived him of his career and ruined his reputation.
|issues=To what extent are federal officials protected by '''absolute immunity'''?
|holding=Federal officials performing discretionary duties aren't protected by absolute immunity like POTUS; they are protected by '''qualified immunity'''.
|rule=POTUS, members of Congress, and federal judges are protected by absolute immunity.
|comments=*[[Section_1983_Litigation/Personal_Liability:_Qualified_Immunity#Summary_Judgment_Motions_Before_and_After_Discovery.3B_Discovery_on_Disputed_Factual_Issues]]

*''[[Imbler v. Pachtman]]''
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/harlow-v-fitzgerald
|source_type=Video summary
|case_text_source=Quimbee
}}
}}