No. 21-2335 ___________________________

Jane Doe

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

The Estate of Joshua Q. Eckerson, Individually; Harrison County

Defendants

Lisa Worrell, Individually

Defendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - St. Joseph ____________

Submitted: February 18, 2022 Filed: June 28, 2022 ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, BENTON and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Jane Doe alleged that Joshua Q. Eckerson, then Sheriff of Harrison County, Missouri, forced her into a sexual relationship that included giving her drugs, directing her to sell them, and protecting her from prosecution. After Doe ended the relationship, Eckerson pursued criminal charges against her, resulting in felony convictions.

Lisa Worrell was Doe’s probation officer. According to Doe, Worrell invited Eckerson to her probation meetings, where Eckerson threatened Doe not to disclose the relationship. Doe asserted a state claim against Lisa Worrell for intentional infliction of emotional distress (in addition to claims against the Estate of Joshua Q. Eckerson, who died in 2020). Worrell moved to dismiss based on official immunity and a “statutory” immunity under subsection 105.711.5, RSMo 2016. For her defense of statutory immunity, Worrell asserted that subsection 105.711.5 bars individual-capacity claims against state employees, such as herself. The district court1 held that section 105.711 “applies to final judgments” and therefore does not bar Doe’s claim against Worrell. It also denied the motion based on official immunity. Worrell appeals only the denial of statutory immunity. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

This court reviews de novo the issues of law in the denial of an immunity defense. See Div. of Emp. Sec. v. Bd. Of Police Comm’rs, 864 F.3d 974, 978 (8th Cir. 2017) (reviewing a state-immunity denial).

Worrell urges this court to find statutory immunity in a 2005 amendment that added this language to subsection 105.711.5:

In the case of any claim or judgment against an officer or employee of the state or any agency of the state based upon conduct of such officer or employee arising out of and performed in connection with his or her official duties on behalf of the state or any agency of the state that would give rise to a cause of action under section 537.600, the state legal expense fund shall be liable, excluding punitive damages . . . . The state legal expense fund shall be the exclusive remedy and shall preclude any

1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri -2- other civil actions or proceedings for money damages arising out of or relating to the same subject matter against the state officer or employee, or the officer’s or employee’s estate. No officer or employee of the state or any agency of the state shall be individually liable in his or her personal capacity for conduct of such officer or employee arising out of and performed in connection with his or her official duties on behalf of the state or any agency of the state. § 105.711.5, RSMo 2016 (emphasis added).

Worrell acknowledges that no Missouri court has interpreted section 105.711 to bar suits against state employees in their individual capacities. Worr