Id. at 663-65; Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis, 581 N.W.2d 312, 316 (Minn. 1998); Meier v. City of Columbia Heights, 686 N.W.2d 858, 866-67 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Dec. 14, 2004).

On appeal, Bahl argues the district court erred in ruling vicarious official immunity barred his claims for damages under the MHRA because the doctrine does not apply when there is evidence of malice, e.g., Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View, 518 N.W.2d 567, 570–71 (Minn.1994), or where the public entity has failed to adopt adequate policies and procedures to ensure effective communication, e.g., Meier v. City of Columbia Heights, 686 N.W.2d 858, 866–67 (Minn.Ct.App.2004). Bahl argues facts exist which would allow a jury to reasonably conclude that these exceptions to vicarious official immunity apply.

"When reviewing a denial of summary judgment based on a claim of immunity, we presume the truth of the facts alleged by the nonmoving party." Meier v. City of Columbia Heights, 686 N.W.2d 858, 863 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Dec. 14, 2004) (quotation omitted).

"The applicability of immunity is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo." Meier v. City of Columbia Heights, 686 N.W.2d 858, 863 (Minn.App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Dec. 14, 2004).

"A district court's decision regarding governmental immunity is immediately reviewable by this court." Meier v. City of Columbia Heights, 686 N.W.2d 858, 863 (Minn.App. 2004) (citing Anderson v. City of Hopkins, 393 N.W.2d 363, 364 (Minn. 1986), review denied (Minn.

We note that the scope of review in an immunity appeal is usually limited to the immunity issue and other issues that are inextricably intertwined with the immunity issue. See Meier v. City of Columbia Heights, 686 N.W.2d 858, 863 (Minn.App. 2004) (citing Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm'n, 514 U.S. 35, 50-51 (1995)), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 14, 2004). Because the supreme court has remanded the matter to us, and in the interest of judicial economy, we address the pleading issue here.

Accordingly, the party asserting official immunity has the burden of showing they are entitled to its protection. Meier v. City of Columbia Heights, 686 N.W.2d 858, 863 (Minn.App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 14, 2004).

Meulemans, as the party asserting immunity, bears the burden of establishing its applicability. See Meier v. City of Columbia Heights, 686 N.W.2d 858, 863 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Dec. 14, 2004).

Winona County, as the party asserting immunity, bears the burden of establishing that the doctrine applies. Meier v. City of Columbia Heights, 686 N.W.2d 858, 863 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Dec. 14, 2004).

Mumm, 708 N.W.2d at 490. The application of immunity is a question of law reviewed de novo, Gleason, 582 N.W.2d at 219, and "[t]he party asserting immunity has the burden of showing particular facts demonstrating an entitlement to immunity," Meier v. City of Columbia Heights, 686 N.W.2d 858, 863 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Dec. 14, 2004).