Supreme Court Rules in ‘Class of One’ Suit

Supreme Court Rules in
‘Class of One’ Suit—Web Extra

In a case that could have affected all public employers in the nation—including school districts— the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the equal protection clause of the Constitution does not allow individual public employees to sue for workplace discrimination.

In the case, Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, an employee of the state agency claimed she was harassed by a coworker, passed over for a promotion that was given to that coworker, and then lost her job due to budget cuts. Her case states that as a “class of one,” her equal protection rights had been violated because she was treated differently than other employees—even though she was not a member of a protected class, such as gender or race. The court disagreed with her argument.

The ruling was also a victory for the National School Boards Association, which had filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the agency. NSBA said that an adverse decision in the case could have affected school districts by raising an employee’s challenge to any public employment decision—hiring, firing, transfers or pay—to the level of a constitutional claim, which would increase litigation costs. School districts are collectively the largest employer in the United States, according to NSBA.

The NSBA brief said that “the federal court is not the appropriate forum in which to review the multitude of personnel decisions that are made daily by public agencies.”

The Supreme Court ruled that the “class of one” concept does not apply to public employees, stating that “government employees do not lose their constitutional rights when they go to work, but those rights must be balanced against the realities of the employment context.” The court recognized that employers make employment decisions based on a wide array of subjective, individualized assessments.

In the 6-3 decision, the court added, “If class-of-one claims were recognized in the employment context, any personnel action in which a wronged employee can conjure up a claim of differential treatment would suddenly become the basis for a federal constitutional claim.”