108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988); Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 694-95, 117 S.Ct. 1636, 137 L.Ed.2d 945 (1997). Absolute immunity is determined by a functional analysis that looks to “ ‘the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.’ ” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 269, 113 S.Ct. 2606, 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993) (quoting Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991)). The official seeking absolute immunity bears the burden of showing that immunity is justified in light of the function she was performing. See Burns, 500 U.S. at 486, 111 S.Ct. 1934. This court has held that under certain circumstances, social workers are entitled to absolute immunity. See Kurzawa v. Mueller, 732 F.2d 1456, 1458 (6th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Salyer v. Patrick, 874 F.2d 374, 377-78 (6th
holding selsky entitled to absolute immunity holding that child social workers are entitled to absolute immunity for their actions on behalf of the state in preparing for initiating and prosecuting dependency hearings as well as the formulation and presentation of recommendations to the court in the course of such proceedings holding that social workers are entitled to absolute immunity when prosecuting child delinquency petitions holding that social services attorneys were entitled to absolute immunity for actions related to the prosecution of child neglect and delinquency proceedings holding that social workers are entitled to absolute immunity in performing quasiprosecutorial functions connected with the initiation and pursuit of child dependency proceedings