Supreme Court hears arguments in “class of one” equal protection suit
May a public employee be fired just out of spite? That, in essence, was the question before the U.S. Supreme Court last week in a case being watched closely by groups representing teachers and school boards. The question assumes, as in the case of a food-standards specialist for the state of Oregon whose job was eliminated amid tensions with her boss, that the worker isn’t protected by a union contract or a member of a group shielded from employment discrimination based on race, sex, or other protected classes. The issue before the justices in Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture (Case No. 07-474) involves whether public employees may press federal lawsuits under the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause when an adverse job action is based on subjective or malicious reasons targeted only at them. Such a suit is called a “class of one” claim. Neal Katyal, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who was arguing the case for the Oregon worker, said an adverse job action against that worker would pass muster under the equal-protection clause as long the action had a rational basis, such as being “related to government efficiency.”
The National Education Association (NEA) joined with several other unions in filing a friend-of-the-court brief on the side of the worker. The brief argues that a federal appeals court incorrectly barred class-of-one claims for public employees under the equal-protection clause partly out of an unwarranted fear that allowing such claims could turn everyday job disputes in public agencies into federal cases. The National School Boards Association (NSBA), meanwhile, filed a brief on Oregon’s side that expresses concern that federal courts “will become super personnel departments, responsible for addressing every grievance made by school district employees across the country.” The Bush administration expressed the same concern during the April 21 oral arguments. The justices and the lawyers debated whether most state and local government employment was truly “at will,” meaning that workers can be dismissed without cause for virtually any nondiscriminatory reason. Teachers in many states are protected first by their union contracts, and many states have civil-service procedures governing dismissals. But at-will employment prevails for many government workers, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy expressed worry that ruling for the worker in the Oregon case would create “a national for-cause employment system. You can only be … fired for cause.” Mr. Katyal pointed out that two federal circuit courts had recognized class-of-one claims for public employees for more than 25 years, and that “it’s the law of the land” in nine of the 12 geographic circuit courts. Justice Kennedy and his colleagues aggressively questioned both sides. “It seems to me that you want us to write an opinion that says there are some instances where the government can act arbitrarily and unreasonably,” Justice Kennedy said to Janet A. Metcalf, an assistant attorney general of Oregon, who was arguing the state’s case. “We would ask you to write an opinion … that says that, within the public-employment context, there are no class-of-one equal-protection claims,” Ms. Metcalf said.
Source: Education Week, 4/24/08, By Mark Walsh
[Editor’s Note: The transcript of the arguments is below. Background, including NSBA’s brief in support of the employer’s position that “class of one” claims should not be recognized in the context of public employment, is at the second link. The NEA brief is at the third.]
Transcript in Engquist v. Ore. Dep’t of Agriculture
NSBA School Law pages on NSBA brief in Engquist
NEA et al. brief in Engquist