ABSTRACT
From: Review of Public Personnel Administration 29 (March 2009): 3-19. Abridged. In Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture (2008b), by a six-three
vote, the Roberts Court held that public employees may not use the socalled class-of-one equal protection clause doctrine to challenge the constitutionality of arguably arbitrary personnel actions.1 The case involved a lawsuit brought by an Oregon state public employee who alleged that her agency laid her off as part of a reduction in force “for arbitrary, vindictive, and malicious reasons” (Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 2008b, p. 2148). In other words, the employee alleged that her agency treated her differently from similarly situated employees. The 2000 Supreme Court decision, in Village of Willowbrook v. Olech,
opened the door for public employees to bring class-of-one equal protection claims against public employers. In a per curiam opinion, the high court stated the following:
The Equal Protection Clause [gave] rise to a cause of action on behalf of a class of one where the plaintiff does not allege membership in a class or group, but alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and there is no rational basis for such treatment.
