Last Monday, in the case of Engquist v. Oregon, the United States Supreme Court declined to extend the protections of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause to claims by public employees whose allegations are not based upon their membership in a recognized protected class. Rather, such lawsuits have merely been based upon the alleged vindictive actions of supervisors who have singled out the plaintiffs for discrimination for reasons unrelated to their race, gender, religion or national origin. These cases have been referred to as lawsuits by a "class of one."
Anup Engquist claimed she was fired for "arbitrary, vindictive and malicious reasons"
This decision arose based on a dispute between two male and two female laboratory employees at the Oregon Department of Agriculture. Disagreements between the two groups intensified to a point where one male employee was ordered to undergo diversity and anger management training. Shortly thereafter, the other male employee was promoted to head of the laboratory. Subsequently, the two men plotted to terminate Anup Engquist, a native of India, and another female employee who opposed business practices of the two male employees. The women's jobs were eventually eliminated, and Ms. Engquist sued the State of Oregon and her supervisor in federal court. Ms. Engquist alleged wrongful termination based on her gender and national origin as well as "arbitrary, vindictive and malicious reasons." The jury rejected her claim of gender and national origin discrimination, but concluded that her termination was arbitrary, vindictive, and malicious. She was awarded both compensatory and punitive damages. The case was appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the trial court's ruling. Ms. Engquist appealed. The Supreme Court agreed with the ruling of the Court of Appeals. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts noted, "Public employees typically have a variety of protections from just the sort of personnel actions about which Engquist complains, but the Equal Protection Clause is not one of them." He further expressed concern that the "class-of-one theory of equal protection" poised the risk of burdening the federal courts with millions of lawsuits by public employees based upon what are only ordinary job grievances.
The future impact ...
As a result of this ruling, the Supreme Court has endorsed the need of a supervisor to make a "subjective, individualized decision" regarding employment actions without fear of the decision becoming "a constitutional matter," in the words of Chief Justice Roberts. Public employees remain entitled to bring causes of action against government employers based on federally protected class discrimination, while no longer being allowed to challenge the alleged vindictive decisions of their employers based upon their membership in a "class of one."
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
