Legal Document

128 S. Ct. 2146 (2008) Anup ENGQUIST, Petitioner, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE et al. No. 07-474. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 21, 2008. Decided June 9, *2148 Neal Katyal, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Janet A. Metcalf, Salem, OR, respondents. Lisa Blatt, the States as amicus curiae, by special leave Court, supporting Virginia Seitz, Jeffrey T. Green, Quin M. Sorenson, Pankaj Venugopal, Sidley Austin LLP, Craig Crispin, Crispin Employment Lawyers, Portland, Counsel Record, Justin Florence, Matthew Gerke, Stephen I. Vladeck, David H. Remes, C. Wu, Covington & Burling Sarah O'Rourke Schrup, Chicago, IL, Petitioner. Hardy Myers, Attorney General Oregon, Peter Shepherd, Deputy General, Mary Williams, Solicitor Assistant Respondents. Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered opinion Court. The question in this case is whether a public employee can state claim under Equal Protection Clause alleging that she was arbitrarily treated differently from other similarly situated employees, with no assertion different treatment based on employee's membership any particular class. We hold such "class-of-one" theory equal *2149 protection has place employment context. I Engquist, petitioner case, hired 1992 Norma Corristan to be an international food standard specialist Export Service Center (ESC), laboratory within Oregon Department Agriculture (ODA). During course her employment, Engquist experienced repeated problems Joseph Hyatt, another ODA employee, complaining he had made false statements about and otherwise life difficult. responded directing Hyatt attend diversity anger management training. In 2001, John Szczepanski, assistant director ODA, assumed responsibility over ESC, supervising Corristan, Engquist. Szczepanski told client could not "control" "would gotten rid of." When both applied vacant managerial post chose despite Engquist's greater experience relevant field. Later year, during round across-the-board budget cuts eliminated Corristan's position. Finally, January 31, 2002, informed position being because reorganization. collective-bargaining agreement gave opportunity either "bump" at level, or take demotion. She found unqualified only level declined demotion, therefore effectively laid off. subsequently brought suit District against all respondents here, violations federal antidiscrimination statutes, Due Process Clauses Fourteenth Amendment, law. As claim, alleged defendants discriminated basis race, sex, national origin. also what known fired member identified class (unlike origin claims), but simply "arbitrary, vindictive, malicious reasons." App. 10. granted respondents' motion summary judgment some claims, allowed others go forward, including each claims. class-of-one legally viable, deciding fully applicable Civ. 02-1637-AS (D.Ore., Sept. 14, 2004), 58, 2004 WL 2066748, *5. court held succeed if prove "that singled out result animosity part Szczepanski"i.e., their actions were spiteful efforts punish reasons unrelated legitimate objective"and demonstrate, animosity, "she than who situated." Ibid. jury rejected claims discrimination suspect classher claimsbut favor claim. Specifically, "intentionally treat[ed] [Engquist] respect denial promotion, termination bumping rights without rational solely *2150 arbitrary, vindictive Pet. Cert. 3-4. several awarded $175,000 compensatory damages $250,000 punitive damages. Appeals reversed part. It recognized upheld challenge legislative regulatory action Village Willowbrook Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 120 1073, 145 L. Ed. 2d 1060 (2000) (per curiam). 478 F.3d 985, 992-993 (C.A.9 2007). below acknowledged Circuits Olech context, id., 993 (citing cases), it disagreed those courts ground our cases have routinely afforded government leeway when acts employer rather regulator, 993-996. concluded extending context would lead undue judicial interference practices "completely invalidate practice at-will employment." Id., 995. accordingly "inapplicable decisions employers regard employees." 996. Judge Reinhardt dissented, "agree[ing] circuits decisions." 1010. certiorari resolve disagreement lower courts, 552 ___, 977, 169 800 (2008), now affirm. II argues forbids irrationally treating one situated, regardless supra, we similar protection, Brief Petitioner 14-15; protects individuals, classes, 15-17; proscribes "discrimination arising act conduct administrative official," 17; Constitution applies State employer, 23-29. Thus, concludes just actors, 29-32, differential employeeseven groupviolates unless supported basis, 32, 39-45. do quarrel premises argument. well settled "protect[s] persons, groups," Adarand Constructors, Inc. Peña, 515 200, 227, 115 2097, 132 158 (1995) (emphasis omitted), Clause's protections apply acts, see, e.g., Raymond Chicago Union Traction Co., 207 20, 35-36, 28 7, 52 78 (1907). equally escape strictures role employers. See, New York City Transit Authority Beazer, 440 568, 99 1355, 59 587 (1979); Harrah Independent School Dist. Martin, 194, 1062, 248 (1979) curiam); Massachusetts Bd. Retirement Murgia, 427 307, 96 S.Ct. *2151 2562, 49 520 (1976) not, however, agree conclusion follows these premises. Our traditional view core concern shield arbitrary classifications, combined unique considerations opposed sovereign, us conclude does A long there crucial difference, constitutional analysis, between exercising "the power regulate license, lawmaker," acting "as proprietor, manage [its] internal operation." Cafeteria Restaurant Workers McElroy, 367 886, 896, 81 1743, 6 1230 (1961). This distinction been particularly clear review employment. indeed far broader powers sovereign." Waters Churchill, 511 661, 671, 114 1878, 686 (1994) (plurality opinion). "[T]he extra area comes nature government's mission employer. Government agencies are charged law doing tasks. Agencies hire employees help tasks efficiently possible." 674-675, 1878. See Connick 461 138, 150-151, 103 1684, 75 708 (1983) (explaining interest "in `promot[ing] efficiency integrity discharge official duties, [in] maintain[ing] proper discipline service'" (quoting Ex parte Curtis, 106 371, 373, 1 381, 27 232 (1882) (alterations original))). "The achieving its goals possible elevated relatively subordinate sovereign significant employer." Waters, 675, 1878 Given "common-sense realization offices function every decision became matter," Connick, 143, "constitutional must rest principles . restraints imposed sovereign," 674, light basic principles, often significantly dealings citizen brings bear citizens large. example, Fourth Amendment require obtain warrants before conducting search office. O'Connor Ortega, 480 709, 721-722, 107 1492, 94 714 (1987) 732, 1492 (SCALIA, J., concurring judgment). Although "legitimate privacy interests private objects they bring workplace may substantial," "[a]gainst balanced realities workplace, which strongly suggest warrant requirement unworkable." 721, protect discharge, even mistaken unreasonable. Bishop Wood, 426 341, 350, 2074, 48 684 ("The *2152 guarantee incorrect ill-advised personnel decisions"). public-employee speech instructive. Pickering Board Township High 205, Will Cty., 391 563, 88 1731, 20 811 (1968), explained that, analyzing deprived First seek "a balance [employee], citizen, commenting upon matters State, promoting services performs through analyzed contours more supra. falls protectionspeech concern. "`First assembly extent characterized political,'" generally prohibit punish, capacity touch concern, 147, 1684 Mine Illinois Bar Assn., 389 217, 223, 353, 19 (1967)). But "[w]hen expression cannot fairly considered relating matter political, social, community, officials should enjoy wide latitude managing offices." U.S., 146, 1684. explained, "absent most unusual circumstances, appropriate forum wisdom taken agency allegedly reaction behavior." Bishop, 349-350, 2074). precedent establishes two main principles: First, although lose accept positions, Second, striking balance, consider asserted right implicates concerns provision, claimed readily give way requirements With mind, come cognizable B jurisprudence typically concerned governmental classifications "affect groups others." McGowan Maryland, 366 420, 425, 1101, 393 Ross Moffitt, 417 600, 609, 2437, 41 341 (1974) ("`Equal Protection' emphasizes disparity classes individuals whose situations arguably indistinguishable"); San Antonio Rodriguez, 411 1, 60, 93 1278, 36 16 (1973) (Stewart, concurring) ("[T]he legislation purpose effect create discrete objectively identifiable classes"). Plaintiffs allege classified members "identifiable group." Personnel Administrator *2153 Mass. Feeney, 442 256, 279, 2282, 60 870 (1979). correctly argues, circumstances sustained plaintiff class-based discrimination, instead so-called "class one." property owner asked village connect municipal water supply. required 15-foot easement owners seeking access supply, conditioned Olech's connection grant 33-foot easement. sued village, claiming village's 18 feet longer norm violated Clause. class, complaint stated valid "been intentionally difference treatment." 564, 1073 Sioux Bridge Co. Dakota County, 260 441, 43 190, 67 340 (1923), Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Commission Webster 488 336, 109 633, 102 688 (1989)). Recognition facts so much departure principle classification, application principle. That involved regulation property. Similarly, relied assessment taxation schemes. Pittsburgh, supra; Bridge, expect "without persons," borrow phrase oath. U.S.C. § 453. ago, "requires persons subjected shall alike, like conditions, privileges conferred liabilities imposed." Hayes Missouri, 68, 71-72, 7 30 578 (1887). appear nevertheless differently, requires least reason assure subject "treated conditions." appears individual government, specter classification raised, "rational 1073. What seems existence departures, single plaintiff, assessed. There indication zoning board discretionary authority subjective, individualized determinationsat length, however typical determinations general matter. 565, (BREYER, result). Rather, consistently easement, raised *2154 provide it. cited market value, county departed basing assessments quite dated purchase prices. Again, suggestion "dramatic differences valuation" parcels, subjective sort appraisers rely, see 338-342, 345, 633. same recognizing taxpayer's assessed 100 percent while 55 percent, articulated properties. 445-447, 190. forms action, involve decisionmaking vast array assessments. rule people conditions" person others, accepted consequence discretion granted. situations, allowing singling undermine very entrusted exercise. Suppose, traffic officer stationed busy highway where drive above speed limit, distinguish them. If gives ticket, good English say created did get speeding tickets, one" did. assuming activity speeders stopped ticketed, invoke fear improper classification. Such complaint, rather, challenges legitimacy underlying itselfthe ticket circumstances. Of course, allegation tickets given race sex discriminatory implicate concerns. discernible articulable reason, incompatible inherent challenged action. individualized. clearly individualized, resting factors difficult articulate quantify. herself points out, "[u]nlike official, into account personalities interpersonal relationships workplace. close relationship varied needs mean personality conflicts unreasonable grounds `arm's-length' (e.g., zoning, licensing) justify employee." 48. Unlike arm's-length regulation, *2155 seemingly par course. protectionwhich presupposes treat them classify survive rationality reviewis poor fit To raises exercise broad characterizes employer-employee relationship. individually everyone else, Clause, provisions, Indeed, make implicated makes distinct categorically differently. 593, 1355 (upholding city's exclusion methadone users rational-basis review); 199-201, 1062 (classification teachers complied continuing-education violate Clause); 314-317, 2562 mandatory retirement agea ageunder review). dissent's statement "excep[t] Amendment's unequal irrational hands State," post, 2158 (opinion STEVENS, J.), thus plainly correct. never specific circumstance where, manner. surprising, historical understanding ago "settled absence legislation, revoked will appointing officer." 1743. terminated "`good bad all.'" Reply 27. Andrews Louisville Nashville R. 406 320, 324, 92 1562, 32 95 (1972) concept `wrongful discharge' implies statutory contractual modifies common-law contract terminable party will"). "[w]e violation substantively information." 679, 146-147, ("[O]rdinary dismissals service dismissal unreasonable" Regents Colleges Roth, 408 2701, 33 548 (1972); Perry Sindermann, 2694, 570 684)). "And *2156 all." 2074. cannot, independently Constitution. 2150-2153. recognition contextthat is, allis contrary repudiating familiar doctrine. sure, Congress have, part, replaced various schemes protecting impermissible reasons. 5 2302(b)(10) (2006 ed.) (supervisor covered "discriminate adversely affect performance applicant others"). Amicus Curiae 20-21. limit ability fire grace, mandate. presses jeopardize delicate governments struck service.'" 151, 381; alterations original). Civil Reform Act 1978, Pub.L. 95-454, specifically excluded 2302(a)(2)(C) (excluding coverage, inter alia, Federal Bureau Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Agency). Were find subjects undone Congress's (and States') careful work. concluding contextand decidewe guided, past, matter." If, suggests, plaintiffs need group, argue worse wronged conjure up suddenly become nearly instance assertedly wrongful actionnot hiring firing decisions, salary, work assignmentson wrongfully. F.3d, On view, complaint. assures accepting pose too practical problem. *2157 intentional, rationally related purpose. 36-39. And "governmental whenever relates interest," "difficult show failed meet standard." 41. STEVENS argument, stating handful [of complaints] dismissed advance trial." Post, 2161. arbitrary. submission beside point. problem forward easy prevail, forced defend multitude first place, obliged proverbial needle haystack. "[t]his displacement supervision." Garcetti Ceballos, 547 410, 423, 126 1951, 164 689 (2006). short, ratifying impermissibly "constitutionalize grievance." 154, daily agencies." 349, Public variety complains, affirmed. ordered. whom SOUTER GINSBURG join, dissenting. provided remedy 42 1983.[1] prior cases, refused craft new remedies Bush Lucas, 462 367, 2404, 76 648 (1983), nonconstitutional (1976). refusal congressionally mandated embodied 1983 impermissible. avoid result, today suffered all, harm remedied. holding, Courtas (2006)carves novel exception employees' rights. Garcetti, substantive excepting category *2158 Amendment. Today, creates State. Even surgery truly necessary prevent use scalpel meat-axe. curiam), decades: Unless singles individual, adverse justification, violates command "deny jurisdiction laws." emphasized legal issue consisted five members, number immaterial analysis." n. outcome determined size disadvantaged majority not cannotdispute groups. ante, 2150-2151. Nor turn fact discriminating employee. dispute regulators. 2151. indeed, provisions afford serve served them, provides cause injured abridgment protections." Collins Harker Heights, 503 115, 119-120, 112 1061, 117 261 (1992). dictated discrimination. explained: "Our successful `class one,' alleges treatment. doing, `[t]he clause secure State's intentional occasioned express terms statute execution duly constituted agents.' "[Olech's] Village's demand `irrational wholly arbitrary' These allegations, apart motivation, sufficient relief (some quotation marks citations omitted). Here, irrational. response, offered explanation whatsoever decisions; subpar worker, *2159 colleagues working her. fact, explicitly disclaimed performance-based rationale.[2] 17, 19. proceeded "differently jury's verdict established finding. Under reasoning justification sufficed establish violation. nonetheless concludes, "unique employer," Ante, Its speculation inapt hypothetical evaluation importance preserving regime "at will" flawed counts. asserts public-employment carved (as to, decisions) inherently discretionary. free authority. decision. represents choice among alternatives. Hart Sacks, Legal Process: Basic Problems Making Application Law 162 (Tent. ed.1958) (defining choose courses thought permissible"). unwise arguments favoring alternative closely balanced, using coin toss tie breaker. Moreover, decisionsdecisions unsupported basisnot ones. Accordingly, "reasonably conceivable" support claim; will. order giving rise posited otherwise. described Court's opinion, 2154, speeder passing him highway. His inability arrest driver sight adequate making random group guilty accessible violators. such, correct "allowing *2160 action." arrest, officer's noted, alternatives comparable supervisor eliminate due involuntary reduction-in-force chooses terminate culpable employees) differs instant insofar assumes might able explain why itself one, employees. Instead confine involving complete conceivable adopts unnecessarily tolerates III majority's rests premise "[t]he th[e] doctrine" 2156. 1890's doctrine broadly McAuliffe Mayor Bedford, 155 216, 29 N.E. 517 (1892), many years "`the denied altogether how unreasonable, uniformly rejected.'" Keyishian Univ. N. Y., 385 589, 605-606, 87 17 629 (1967). recent enactments nullified significance Elrod Burns, 347, 2673, (1976); Rutan Republican Party Ill., 497 62, 110 2729, 111 (1990); remnants "at-will" feeble creating well-established protections.[3] IV Presumably actually motivates today's wields meat-axe forthwith. Experience demonstrates, infrequently,[4]*2161 complaints advancing well, trial. demonstrates rare petty tyrant misused power. Proof misuse suffice requiring victim motivated animus. allegations identify haystack," 2157, misconstrue easier dismiss unmeritorious * sum, compelling carve sufficiently unjustified actions. respectfully dissent. NOTES [1] Section "[e]very who, color statute, ordinance, custom, usage, Territory Columbia, subjects, causes subjected, thereof deprivation rights, privileges, immunities secured laws, liable law, equity, proceeding redress.. ." [2] disclaimer, discerned "any reasonably [State's actions]," put forth FCC Beach Communications, Inc., 508 313, 113 2096, 124 211 (1993). negated possibility. [3] scrutiny since applying rely actual terminating disciplining [4] Prior Ninth Circuit's permitted presented one. Yet approximately 150 casesboth district appealsaddressing Olech.

Classification Label: 1