6/13/08
In a recent 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect a public employee from adverse employment action taken for arbitrary, vindictive, or malicious reasons unique to her situation. Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture. Generally speaking, the Equal Protection Clause prohibits government agencies from arbitrarily discriminating between similarly-situated classes or groups. In some cases, such as those involving landowners, the Court has held that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits the government from arbitrarily denying benefits to or imposing burdens upon one person, rather than a group or class, if other similarly situated individuals are treated more favorably. This type of claim is called a "class-of-one" claim. In Engquist, a public employee argued that she should be allowed to maintain a class-of-one claim after her job was eliminated for reasons that she characterized as "arbitrary, vindictive, and malicious." The Court rejected this argument, finding that the class-of-one theory does not apply to decisions by the government in its capacity as an employer. The Court reasoned that "treating seemingly similarly situated individuals differently in the employment context is par for the course."
Engquist is a victory for public employers, as a contrary result could have seriously eroded the general rule that employment is "at will" absent a contrary contract or other guarantee of continued employment. However, Engquist does not affect employees' job protections under civil service rules, collective bargaining agreements and anti-discrimination laws, nor does it bar equal protection lawsuits based upon discrimination against individuals due to their membership in a particular class or group. Consequently, while it eliminates one possible cause of action for public employees, this case does not diminish the need for public employers to base employment decisions upon legitimate, non-discriminatory factors.
