« 9th Circuit grants stay of injunction against San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance | Main | ADA accommodation case taken off Supreme Court docket »
Supreme Court takes "class of one" case
January 11, 2008 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
This morning the US Supreme Court announced that it will decide whether, in the context of employment, there can be a "class of one" under the equal protection clause.
Engquist v. Oregon Dept of Agriculture [Details]
The ("liberal") 9th Circuit rejected a legal theory that many other circuits have adopted. It's the class-of-one idea that you can win an equal protection case even though you're not claiming to be in a multi-member class such as is involved in race and sex discrimination.
Enquist was laid off from her state job. She sued her public employer under several theories and won a jury verdict based on two constitutional theories and on intentional interference with contract. The 9th Circuit reversed on the equal protection claim.
Equal protection for a class of one? 9th Circuit said "No."
Engquist v. Oregon Dept of Agriculture (9th Cir 02/08/2007) (2-1 vote).
The jury found liability under the equal protection clause because the defendants "intentionally treat[ed] the plaintiff differently than others similarly situated with respect to the denial of her promotion, termination of her employment, or denial of bumping rights without any rational basis and solely for arbitrary, vindictive, or malicious reasons." This was done on a theory that Engquist was a "class of one."
The 9th Circuit held, as a matter of first impression, that a class-of-one theory is not applicable to public employees. Following Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 US 562 (2000), the 9th Circuit has applied the class of one theory to regulatory land use cases, and other Circuits have applied it to public employment decisions.
The court concluded that the rights of public employees are not as broad as the rights of ordinary citizens, the need for review under equal protection analysis is "thin" due to other legal protections enjoyed by public employees, and "prohibiting arbitrary public employer actions would also upset long-standing personnel practices."
Looks like the expedited briefing schedule imposed by the Supreme Court will give them time to hear oral arguments in April, and decide the case before the summer recess.
|
Editor: Ross Runkel, Professor of Law Emeritus. email Ross@LawMemo.Com, Phone 503-399-8028. Copyright LawMemo, Inc.
|
