Labor & Employment Law

US Supreme Court holds that government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter

US Supreme Court holds that government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter
Anup Engquist v Oregon Department of Agriculture, USCA, 07-474, Decided June 9, 2008 [On Cert from CA 9^th Circuit, 478 F. 3d 985]

Anup Engquist, an Oregon public employee, sued her employer claiming unlawful discrimination and alleging that she was fired not because she was a member of an identified class, in contrast to her discrimination claims, for arbitrary, vindictive, and malicious reasons. She claimed ?class of one? status with respect to these latter allegations.

The Ninth Circuit rejected her ?class of one? action, pointing out that although the Supreme Court has recognized such an action, it has ?routinely afforded government greater leeway, concluding that expanding the class-of-one theory to public employment would lead to undue judicial interference in state employment practices and invalidate public at-will employment.?

The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the class-of-one theory of equal protection does not apply in the public employment context. In so doing, the court distinguished between a government entity exercising ?the power to regulate or license, as lawmaker,? and its acting ?as proprietor, to manage [its] internal operation.? Citing Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 88.

In the words of the court, ?The question in this case is whether a public employee can state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause by alleging that she was arbitrarily treated differently from other similarly situated employees, with no assertion that the different treatment was based on the employee?s membership in any particular class. We hold that such a ?class-of-one? theory of equal protection has no place in the public employment context.?

The full text of the ruling is posted at http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-474.pdf

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on June 10, 2008 (boomark / email).