Litigation

No "class of one" constitutional protection for government employees

By Matt Hedberg

On June 9, in a case involving a former State of Oregon employee, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "class of one" equal protection under the 14th Amendment does not protect state government employees against firings for arbitrary reasons.  Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, rejected the plaintiff's argument that a public employee should be able to establish a violation of equal protection by showing, regardless of membership in any class or group, that the employee was treated less favorably than similarly situated workers.  Typically, for the Equal Protection Clause to apply, the plaintiff must be a member of a protected class that was subject to unlawful discrimination.

In distinguishing an earlier case, the Court acknowledged that it has recognized "class of one" protection where an arbitrary zoning decision affected one plaintiff.  However, that case involved a clear standard against which departures, even for a single plaintiff, could be "readily assessed," whereas employment decisions by public employers are "quite often subjective and individualized, resting on a wide array of factors that are difficult to articulate and quantify."  As the Court observed, public employees do not lose their constitutional rights by accepting public employment, but "those rights must be balanced against the realities of the employment context."  You may read the text of the Court's decision in Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture here.

Full post as published by Northwest Business Litigation Blog on June 16, 2008 (boomark / email).