The Honor able Miriam Goldman Ce darba um, United States District J udg e for the Southern * District of Ne w York, sitting by desig nation. 1 06

- 57 23

- cv Appel v . Spi r i don U

N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F OR THE S EC OND C IR C U IT

_______________ August Term, 2007 (Argued: J une 17, 2008 Dec ided: J uly 2, 2008) Docke t No. 06-5723-c v

_______________ R OS AL I E A PPEL , Plaintif f-Appellee

, —v.— C H A RLES P. S PI R I DON , L I NDA V ADEN -G OAD , L I NDA R I N KER and J A M ES S CHMO TT ER ,

De fe nd an ts- Ap pe lla nts .

_______________ B e f o r e : J A COBS , Chief Judge , S TR AUB , Circuit Judge , and C ED AR B AUM , District Judge

. *

_______________ 1 Appea l from an or der of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 2 (Stefan Underhill, Judge ), e nte re d o n D e c e mbe r 1 , 2 00 6, g ra nti nga pr e lim ina

ry inj un c tio n in 3 favor

of Plaintiff-Appe llee to enjoin Def endants-A

ppellants from re quiringher to submit to a 4 psy cholog ical examination as a c ondition of employ ment. The District Court base d the 5 injunction on a “cla ss of one” theory of a violation of the E qual Protection Clause of the 6 F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nt. As the Un ite d St ate s Su pr e me Court

inEngquist v. Oregon De partment 7 of A gr ic ulture , 128 S. Ct . 2146 (2008), r ece ntly held that such a

theory does not apply , as her e,2 1 in t

he pu bli c e mpl oy

me nt c onte xt, w e re ve rs e the Di str ic t Co ur t’ s o rd e r a

nd re mand fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s. 2 Reverse d and re manded. 3

_______________ 4 5 J OHN R. W I L L I AMS , N e w H ave n, Conne c tic ut, for Plainti ff-Appellee

. 6 7 B ETH Z. M ARGULI ES , Assistant Attorney Gene ral (Richa

rd B lumenthal, Attorney 8 Gene ral for the State of Connec ticut, on the brief ), Ha rtford, Connec ticut, for 9 De

fe nd an ts- Ap pe lla nts . 10 11

_______________ 12 13 PER

CU RIAM : 14 15 Def

endants-A

ppellants Charles P. Spiridon, L inda Vade n-Goa d, L inda Rinker and 16 J ames Schmotter a ppeal f rom an orde r of the United States District Court for the District of 17 Connecticut (Stefa n Under hill, Judge ) grantinga pre liminaryinjunction in favor of Plaintiff18 Ap pe lle e Ros a lie Ap pe l e njo ini ngDe fe nd ants -A pp e lla nts fr om r e qu ir ingAp pe l to su bmi t to 19 a psycholog ical examination in order to maintain her teac hing position at Western 20 Conne c tic ut S tate Un ive rs ity (“ WCSU ” ). In h e r a

me nd e d c omp la int , App e l a sse rt s c la ims 21 based on a lleg ed violations of her constitutional rights under the Fr ee Spee ch Clause of the 22 F ir st Ame nd

me nt a nd un de r t he Eq ua l Pr ote c tio n Cl a

us e of the F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nt a s a 23 “cla ss of one.” The District Court g rante d Appel’s motion for a preliminary

injunction on 24 the g ro un d th at App e l ha d me t he r b ur de n o f e sta bli sh ingthat sh e wo uld

su ff e r i rr e pa ra ble 25 harm without an injunction, that serious questions exist ed re g ardingthe merits of he r equa lThe District Court re jected A ppel’s F irst Amendment claim as a basis for a

preliminary 1 injunction. See A

ppel v. Spiridon , 463 F. Supp. 2d 255, 262–63 (D. Conn. 2006) ( “Appe l has failed to ra ise serious questions g oing to the me rits of her F irst Amendment re taliation claim.”). Th e te xt of

thi s o pin ion

ha s b e e n c ir c ulate d to a ll o f t he a c tiv e jud g e s o f t

he Court , a

nd the re is 2 no objection. See, e .g., United States v. Frias , 521 F.3d 229, 232 n.3 ( 2d Cir. 2008). 3 1 protec tion claim, and that the bala nce of hardships tipped dec idedly in her fa vor. See A

ppel 1 2 v. Spiridon , 463 F. Supp. 2d 255, 261–62, 264–66 (D. Conn. 2006). 3 The Supreme Court rec ently held that the Equa l Protection Clause does not apply to a 4 public employ ee a ssertinga violation of the Clause ba sed on a “ class of one ” theor y of 5 liability

. See E

ngquist v. Or. Dep’ t of Agric. , 128 S. Ct . 2146, 2155–57 (2008). As A ppel’s 6 equal pr otection claim pre mised on this theory was the only

basis for the D istrict Court’s 7 g rant of a

preliminary

injunction, we re verse the orde r of the D istrict Court and rema nd the 8 matter with instructions to vacate the orde r and f or fur ther proc eeding s. Furthe rmore, w e 9 overr

ule any exis ting pr ece dent of this Court to the ext ent that it conflicts with the holding of 10 Engq uis t . See, e .g. , Skehan v . Vill. of Mamaroneck, 465 F.3d 96 ( 2d Cir. 2006); Neilson v. 2 11 D’

Ange lis , 409 F.3d 100 ( 2d Cir 2005). 12 13 F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND 14 Ap pe l ha s w or ke d a s a pr of e sso r o f a rt at WCSUfo r o ve r f

or ty y e ars , a nd WCSU 15 g rante d her te nure in 1969. In May 2005, Appel testified on be half of a colleag ue who wa s 16 pursuinga cla im of rac e discrimination bef ore the Connecticut Commissi on on Human 17 Rights. In the cour se of this testimony , Appel desc ribed the e vents of a c losed September 18 2003 meetingof ar t depar tment fac ulty , the purpose of which wa s to consider Appe l’s 19 c oll e a gue ’s a

pp lic atio n f

or a po sit ion in t he de pa rtme nt.4 1 Severa l months afterwa rd, all of the f

ull-time members of the a rt depa rtment other 2 than Appel sig ned a pe tition t o Def endant- Appellant Va den-G oad, the De an of the School of 3 Arts and Scienc es at WCSU, in which they objected to Appe l’s “bullying” conduct at 4 depar

tment meeting s and her

hostili ty toward the depar

tment chair. The petition did not 5 me nti on

Ap pe l’ s invo lve me nt w ithhe r c oll e a gue ’s dis c ri min atio n c la im. 6 Pursuant to the collective ba rg ainingagree ment applicable to Appel, Vade n-Goa d 7 convene d a spec ial assessment committee ( “SAC”) to eva luate Appe l’s conduct a nd develop 8 an ac tion plan to address a ny problems. Afte r seve ral months of investig ation, the SAC 9 issued its findings in an Apr il 2006 report. The repor t describe d some of Appe l’s conduct a s 10 “borde ringon bullying” and conc luded that Appel’ s service was “ signific antly limit ed by

her 11 appar ent inability to work with her c olleagues.” The repor t also set forth seve ral 12 re c omm e nd atio ns pe rt a ini ngto A pp e l’ s jo b p e rf

or manc e , s uc h a s c ha

ng e s to Ap pe l’ s c ours e 13 syllabi and the ar ticulation of profe ssional boundaries whe n interac ting with students. The 14 SAC a lso re c omm e nd e d th at App e l be g ive n a n “ in- de pth

ps c y ho log ic a l a sse ssm e nt” be c a us e 15 the SAC was unce rtain whe ther Appe l had the ability to control her own behavior 16 c on sis te ntl y . A ft e r p ro vid ingAp pe l w ithan o pp or tun ity to r e sp on d to the se 17 rec ommendations, the SAC issued a reme diation plan in J une 2006 to identify specific steps 18 to i mpr ov e Ap pe l’ s jo b p e rf or manc e , in c lud ingthe ps yc ho log ic a l a sse ssm e nt. 19 Shortly

there afte r, Va den-G oad sought to meet with Appel to discuss the reme diation 20 plan, but Appel re fused to do so. In addition, Defe ndant-Appe llant Spiridon, t he De an of 21 Human Resourc es at WCSU, wrote to Appel to inform her of the ne cessity

of her compliance 22 with the psy cholog ical asse ssment rec ommendation of the re mediation plan. On Jul y 31,5 1 20 06 , App e l f

ile d h e r c omp la int

in t he Di str ic t Co ur

t. 2 On September 5, 2006, Appel met with Spiridon and Def endant- Appellant Rinker, 3 the Provost and Vice President for A cade mic Affa irs at WCS U, but ref used to discuss the 4 reme diation plan. After the meeting , Rinker dec ided to suspend Appel, a s of September 14, 5 2006, without pay due to her

failure to underg o the psycholog ical asse ssment. I t appea rs 6 undisputed that Appel is the only WC SU fac ulty

member or dere d to underg o an involuntary 7 psy cholog ical examination in order to continue te achingand re ceivingpay and bene fits at 8 WC SU. 9 B e fo re the Di str ic t Co ur t, A pp e l f ile d a mot ion fo r a pr e lim ina

ry inj un c tio n to 10 prohibit Defe ndants-Appe llants from suspendingher w ithout pay for r efusingto submitto a 11 psy cholog ical examination. On Dec ember 1, 2006, the District Court g rante d the motion 12 based on A

ppel’s equa l protection cla im under a “ class of one ” theor y . See A ppel , 4 63 F. 13 Supp. 2d at 266–67. 14 De fe nd ants -A pp e lla nts tim e ly fi le d n oti c e of

thi s a pp e a l. 15 16 DI SCU SSIO N 17 The Supreme Court first rec og nized a claim base d upon an alleg ed violation of the 18 Eq

ua l Pr ote c tio n Cl a

us e of the F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nt u

nd e r a “ c la ss o f o ne ” the or

y in 19 Village of W

illow brook v. O lech , 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (pe r cur iam). In that case , the plaintiff 20 argued that a municipa lity ’s demand f or a la rg er tha n usual ea sement in exchang e for 21 connec ting he r prope rty to the municipal water

supply violated her

rig hts under the Equa l 22 Protection Clause by treating he r diffe rently

from all other

simil arly situated individuals. See6 1 id . at 563. The D istrict Court had dismiss ed the a ction for f ailure to state a

claim, and the 2 Seventh Circuit reve rsed. Se eid . at 563–64. The Supre me Court conclude d that the 3 plaintiff’s alleg ation that the municipal conduc t was “irr ational and wholly arbitra ry” stated a 4 claim for a

constitutional viol ation under the Equal Protection Clause. Se eid . at 565. Since 5 Olech , we ha

ve re cognized such “cla ss of one” liability in the public employ

ment context. 6 See, e .g. , Skehan , 46 5 F .3 d at 11 0; Neilson , 409 F.3d at 104. 7 Re c e ntl y , th e Sup re me Court he ld t hat th e Eq

ua l Pr ote c tio n Cl a

us e do e s n ot a

pp ly to 8 a public employee a ssertinga violation of the Clause unde r a “ class of one ” theor y . See 9 Engq uis t , 128 S. Ct . at 2155–57. As this theory serve d as the only

basis for the e qual 10 protec tion analy sis underlying the District Court’s g rant of a preliminary

injunction in favor 11 of Appe l, we re verse the orde r of the D istrict Court. In addition, we over rule a ny prec edent 12 of this Circuit to the ex tent that it conflicts with the holding of En qu ist
. See, e .g. , Skehan , 13 46 5 F .3 d at 11 0; Neilson , 409 F.3d at 104. 14 15 CO NC LU SION 1 6 Fo r t h e f

o re go i n g re as o n s , we R E VE R S E th e o rd er o f t h e D i s tri ctC o urtgran t i n g a 17 pr e lim ina

ry inj un c tio n in

fa vo r o f P la int if

f- Ap pe lle e and

REM AN D the c a se wi th 18 ins tr

uc tio ns to v a c ate the or de r a nd fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s.