|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States Supreme Court Employment Law Cases All pending employment law cases - click here |
Engquist v. Oregon Department of
Justice et al. (07-474)
Equal protection: Whether "class of one" theory applies
to employment cases
|
|
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.
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." The US Supreme
Court granted certiorari to review the 9th Circuit's judgment.
Case below: Engquist
v. Oregon Dept of Agriculture (9th Cir 02/08/2007) (2-1 vote)
Question presented: The Ninth Circuit below vacated the jury’s verdict in favor of Petitioner Engquist and created a
divisive split with the seven Circuits that apply the "rational basis" analysis to public employees who
claim their termination was a result of unequal treatment, even if that treatment did not result from
the employee’s membership in a suspect class. The first question presented is:
1. Whether traditional equal protection "rational basis" analysis under
Village of
Willowbrook v Olech, 528 US 562, 120 S Ct 1073, 145 L Ed 2d 1060 (2000) applies to public employers
who intentionally treat similarly situated employees differently with no rational bases for arbitrary,
vindictive or malicious reasons?
[The Supreme Court did not grant certiorari
as to a second
Certiorari Documents:
Briefs on the merits:
Counsel:
|
|
|
Editor: Ross Runkel, Professor of Law Emeritus. email Ross@LawMemo.Com, Phone 503-399-8028. Copyright LawMemo, Inc.
|
