The Supreme Court has held that when making a decision on qualified immunity, "the court must determine whether, assuming the truth of the plaintiff's allegations, the official's conduct violated clearly established law."

immunity because there were clearly established doctrines at the time as to what actions a caseworker must take when conducting an investigation)

Additionally, FWCS was entitled to summary judgment on the § 1983 claim because, as a matter of law, Haney failed to show that Butler's conduct could have violated a *333 clearly established right.

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Reichle v.

“A clearly established right is one that is ‘sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.’” Mullenix v.

Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity is a legal question for the court to resolve. Fort Wayne Cmty. Schs. v. Haney, 94 N.E.3d 325, 331 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).

Oest, 614 F.3d 713, 717 (7th Cir. 2010) (qualified immunity).

Because the Garwoods in reply address only the immunity issue, see Appellant’s Reply Br. at 16-19 (Swain not entitled to absolute immunity), 19-22 (Swain not entitled to qualified immunity because state law clearly established

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-1972 | September 14, 2020 Page 10 of 59 • violated no clearly established federal constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known at the time and are entitled to qualified

immunity; • were acting as an adjudicatory body and thus are entitled to absolute immunity; • in their respective official capacities are not “persons” subject to suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; and • in their respective