engquist
oregon
department
agriculture
et
argued
april
decided
june
petitioner
engquist
oregon
public
employee
filed
suit
respondents
agency
supervisor
asserting
inter
alia
claims
equal
protection
clause
alleged
discriminated
based
race
sex
national
origin
also
brought
claim
alleging
fired
member
identified
class
unlike
race
sex
national
origin
claims
simply
arbitrary
vindictive
malicious
reasons
jury
rejected
equal
protection
claims
found
engquist
claim
ninth
circuit
reversed
relevant
part
although
recognizing
upheld
equal
protection
challenge
state
legislative
regulatory
action
village
willowbrook
olech
emphasized
routinely
afforded
government
greater
leeway
acts
employer
rather
regulator
concluded
extending
theory
context
lead
undue
judicial
interference
state
employment
practices
invalidate
public
employment
held
theory
equal
protection
apply
public
employment
context
pp
crucial
difference
government
exercising
power
regulate
license
lawmaker
acting
proprietor
manage
internal
operation
cafeteria
restaurant
workers
mcelroy
thus
context
recognized
government
significantly
greater
leeway
dealings
citizen
employees
bringing
sovereign
power
bear
citizens
large
see
ortega
relevant
precedent
establishes
two
main
principles
first
government
employees
lose
constitutional
rights
go
work
rights
must
balanced
realities
employment
context
see
second
striking
appropriate
balance
considers
whether
claimed
employee
right
implicates
relevant
constitutional
provision
basic
concerns
whether
right
readily
give
way
requirements
government
employer
see
connick
myers
pp
equal
protection
jurisprudence
typically
concerned
governmental
classifications
affect
groups
citizens
differently
others
mcgowan
maryland
olech
recognize
equal
protection
claim
circumstances
sustained
recognition
theory
however
much
departure
principle
equal
protection
clause
concerned
arbitrary
government
classification
application
principle
facts
case
government
singled
olech
regard
regulation
property
cases
upon
relied
concerned
property
assessment
taxation
schemes
applied
singular
way
particular
citizens
seems
significant
olech
cited
cases
existence
clear
standard
departures
even
single
plaintiff
readily
assessed
differential
treatment
raised
concern
arbitrary
classification
therefore
required
state
provide
rational
basis
forms
state
action
however
nature
involve
discretionary
decisionmaking
based
vast
array
subjective
individualized
assessments
cases
treating
like
individuals
differently
accepted
consequence
discretion
granted
governmental
officials
principle
applies
clearly
employment
context
decisions
often
subjective
individualized
resting
wide
array
factors
difficult
articulate
quantify
unlike
context
regulation
olech
treating
seemingly
similarly
situated
individuals
differently
employment
context
par
course
proper
challenge
nature
subjective
individualized
decision
subjective
individualized
never
found
equal
protection
clause
implicated
area
surprising
given
historical
understanding
nature
government
employment
see
cafeteria
restaurant
workers
mcelroy
recognition
claim
state
treated
employee
differently
others
bad
reason
reason
simply
contrary
concept
constitution
require
repudiating
familiar
doctrine
finally
guided
past
realization
government
offices
function
every
employment
decision
became
constitutional
matter
connick
supra
claims
recognized
employment
context
personnel
action
wronged
employee
conjure
claim
differential
treatment
suddenly
become
basis
federal
constitutional
claim
equal
protection
clause
require
displacement
managerial
discretion
judicial
supervision
garcetti
ceballos
pp
affirmed
roberts
delivered
opinion
scalia
kennedy
thomas
breyer
alito
joined
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
souter
ginsburg
joined
anup
engquist
petitioner
oregon
department
agriculture
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
june
chief
justice
roberts
delivered
opinion
question
case
whether
public
employee
state
claim
equal
protection
clause
alleging
arbitrarily
treated
differently
similarly
situated
employees
assertion
different
treatment
based
employee
membership
particular
class
hold
theory
equal
protection
place
public
employment
context
anup
engquist
petitioner
case
hired
norma
corristan
international
food
standard
specialist
export
service
center
esc
laboratory
within
oregon
department
agriculture
oda
course
employment
engquist
experienced
repeated
problems
joseph
hyatt
another
oda
employee
complaining
corristan
made
false
statements
otherwise
made
life
difficult
corristan
responded
directing
hyatt
attend
diversity
anger
management
training
john
szczepanski
assistant
director
oda
assumed
responsibility
esc
supervising
corristan
hyatt
engquist
szczepanski
told
client
control
engquist
engquist
corristan
gotten
rid
engquist
hyatt
applied
vacant
managerial
post
within
esc
szczepanski
chose
hyatt
despite
engquist
greater
experience
relevant
field
later
year
round
budget
cuts
oregon
szczepanski
eliminated
corristan
position
finally
january
engquist
informed
position
eliminated
reorganization
engquist
agreement
gave
opportunity
either
bump
another
position
level
take
demotion
found
unqualified
position
level
declined
demotion
therefore
effectively
laid
engquist
subsequently
brought
suit
district
district
oregon
oda
szczepanski
hyatt
respondents
alleging
violations
federal
antidiscrimination
statutes
equal
protection
due
process
clauses
fourteenth
amendment
state
law
engquist
equal
protection
claim
alleged
defendants
discriminated
basis
race
sex
national
origin
also
brought
known
equal
protection
claim
alleging
fired
member
identified
class
unlike
race
sex
national
origin
claims
simply
arbitrary
vindictive
malicious
reasons
app
district
granted
respondents
motion
summary
judgment
engquist
claims
allowed
others
go
forward
including
equal
protection
claims
relevant
case
district
found
engquist
equal
protection
claim
legally
viable
deciding
theory
fully
applicable
employment
context
civ
app
wl
held
engquist
succeed
theory
prove
singled
result
animosity
part
hyatt
szczepanski
actions
spiteful
efforts
punish
reasons
unrelated
legitimate
state
objective
demonstrate
basis
animosity
treated
differently
others
similarly
situated
ibid
jury
rejected
engquist
claims
discrimination
membership
suspect
class
race
sex
national
origin
claims
found
favor
claim
specifically
jury
found
hyatt
szczepanski
intentionally
treat
ed
engquist
differently
others
similarly
situated
respect
denial
promotion
termination
employment
denial
bumping
rights
without
rational
basis
solely
arbitrary
vindictive
malicious
reasons
app
pet
cert
jury
also
found
engquist
several
claims
awarded
compensatory
damages
punitive
damages
appeals
reversed
relevant
part
recognized
upheld
equal
protection
challenge
state
legislative
regulatory
action
village
willowbrook
olech
per
curiam
also
acknowledged
circuits
applied
olech
public
employment
context
citing
cases
disagreed
courts
ground
cases
routinely
afforded
government
greater
leeway
acts
employer
rather
regulator
concluded
extending
theory
equal
protection
public
employment
context
lead
undue
judicial
interference
state
employment
practices
completely
invalidate
practice
public
employment
accordingly
held
theory
inapplicable
decisions
made
public
employers
regard
employees
judge
reinhardt
dissented
agree
ing
circuits
theory
equal
protection
applicable
public
employment
decisions
granted
certiorari
resolve
disagreement
lower
courts
affirm
ii
engquist
argues
equal
protection
clause
forbids
public
employers
irrationally
treating
one
employee
differently
others
similarly
situated
regardless
whether
different
treatment
based
employee
membership
particular
class
reasons
olech
supra
recognized
regulatory
context
similar
theory
equal
protection
brief
petitioner
equal
protection
clause
protects
individuals
classes
clause
proscribes
discrimination
arising
legislative
act
also
conduct
administrative
official
constitution
applies
state
acts
regulator
also
acts
employer
thus
engquist
concludes
claims
brought
public
employers
state
actors
differential
treatment
government
employees
even
based
membership
class
group
violates
equal
protection
clause
unless
supported
rational
basis
quarrel
premises
engquist
argument
well
settled
equal
protection
clause
protect
persons
groups
adarand
constructors
pe
emphasis
omitted
clause
protections
apply
administrative
well
legislative
acts
see
raymond
chicago
union
traction
equally
well
settled
escape
strictures
equal
protection
clause
role
employers
see
new
york
city
transit
authority
beazer
harrah
independent
school
dist
martin
per
curiam
massachusetts
bd
retirement
murgia
per
curiam
however
agree
engquist
conclusion
follows
premises
traditional
view
core
concern
equal
protection
clause
shield
arbitrary
classifications
combined
unique
considerations
applicable
government
acts
employer
opposed
sovereign
lead
us
conclude
theory
equal
protection
apply
public
employment
context
long
held
view
crucial
difference
respect
constitutional
analysis
government
exercising
power
regulate
license
lawmaker
government
acting
proprietor
manage
internal
operation
cafeteria
restaurant
workers
mcelroy
distinction
particularly
clear
review
state
action
context
public
employment
thus
government
employer
indeed
far
broader
powers
government
sovereign
waters
churchill
plurality
opinion
extra
power
government
area
comes
nature
government
mission
employer
government
agencies
charged
law
particular
tasks
agencies
hire
employees
help
tasks
effectively
efficiently
possible
see
also
connick
myers
explaining
government
legitimate
interest
ing
efficiency
integrity
discharge
official
duties
maintain
ing
proper
discipline
public
quoting
ex
parte
curtis
alterations
original
government
interest
achieving
goals
effectively
efficiently
possible
elevated
relatively
subordinate
interest
acts
sovereign
significant
one
acts
employer
waters
supra
plurality
opinion
given
realization
government
offices
function
every
employment
decision
became
constitutional
matter
connick
supra
constitutional
review
government
employment
decisions
must
rest
different
principles
review
restraints
imposed
government
sovereign
waters
supra
plurality
opinion
light
basic
principles
often
recognized
government
significantly
greater
leeway
dealings
citizen
employees
brings
sovereign
power
bear
citizens
large
thus
example
held
fourth
amendment
require
public
employers
obtain
warrants
conducting
search
employee
office
ortega
plurality
opinion
see
also
scalia
concurring
judgment
although
recognized
legitimate
privacy
interests
public
employees
private
objects
bring
workplace
may
substantial
found
gainst
privacy
interests
must
balanced
realities
workplace
strongly
suggest
warrant
requirement
unworkable
plurality
opinion
also
found
due
process
clause
protect
public
employee
discharge
even
discharge
mistaken
unreasonable
see
bishop
wood
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
guarantee
incorrect
personnel
decisions
speech
cases
particularly
instructive
pickering
board
ed
township
high
school
dist
explained
analyzing
claim
public
employee
deprived
first
amendment
rights
employer
must
seek
balance
interests
employee
citizen
commenting
upon
matters
public
concern
interest
state
employer
promoting
efficiency
public
services
performs
employees
analyzed
contours
balance
fully
connick
myers
supra
explained
first
amendment
protects
speech
falls
within
core
first
amendment
protection
speech
matters
public
concern
recognized
amendment
protect
speech
assembly
extent
characterized
political
government
therefore
generally
prohibit
punish
capacity
sovereign
speech
ground
touch
upon
matters
public
concern
quoting
mine
workers
illinois
bar
hen
employee
expression
fairly
considered
relating
matter
political
social
concern
community
government
officials
enjoy
wide
latitude
managing
offices
connick
explained
absent
unusual
circumstances
federal
appropriate
forum
review
wisdom
personnel
decision
taken
public
agency
allegedly
reaction
employee
behavior
citing
bishop
supra
precedent
context
therefore
establishes
two
main
principles
first
although
government
employees
lose
constitutional
rights
accept
positions
rights
must
balanced
realities
employment
context
second
striking
appropriate
balance
consider
whether
asserted
employee
right
implicates
basic
concerns
relevant
constitutional
provision
whether
claimed
right
readily
give
way
requirements
government
employer
principles
mind
come
question
whether
theory
equal
protection
cognizable
public
employment
context
equal
protection
jurisprudence
typically
concerned
governmental
classifications
affect
groups
citizens
differently
others
mcgowan
maryland
see
ross
moffitt
protection
emphasizes
disparity
treatment
state
classes
individuals
whose
situations
arguably
indistinguishable
san
antonio
independent
school
dist
rodriguez
stewart
concurring
basic
concern
equal
protection
clause
state
legislation
whose
purpose
effect
create
discrete
objectively
identifiable
classes
plaintiffs
cases
generally
allege
arbitrarily
classified
members
identifiable
group
personnel
administrator
mass
feeney
engquist
correctly
argues
however
recognized
olech
equal
protection
claim
circumstances
sustained
even
plaintiff
alleged
discrimination
instead
claims
irrationally
singled
class
one
olech
property
owner
asked
village
willowbrook
connect
property
municipal
water
supply
although
village
required
easement
property
owners
seeking
access
water
supply
village
conditioned
olech
connection
grant
easement
olech
sued
village
claiming
village
requirement
easement
feet
longer
norm
violated
equal
protection
clause
although
olech
alleged
village
discriminated
based
membership
identifiable
class
held
complaint
stated
valid
claim
equal
protection
clause
alleged
intentionally
treated
differently
others
similarly
situated
rational
basis
difference
treatment
citing
sioux
city
bridge
dakota
county
allegheny
pittsburgh
coal
commission
webster
recognition
theory
equal
protection
facts
olech
much
departure
principle
equal
protection
clause
concerned
arbitrary
government
classification
application
principle
case
involved
government
regulation
property
similarly
cases
upon
olech
relied
concerned
property
assessment
taxation
schemes
see
allegheny
pittsburgh
supra
sioux
city
bridge
supra
expect
legislative
regulatory
classifications
apply
without
respect
persons
borrow
phrase
judicial
oath
see
explained
long
ago
fourteenth
amendment
requires
persons
subjected
legislation
shall
treated
alike
like
circumstances
conditions
privileges
conferred
liabilities
imposed
hayes
missouri
appear
similarly
situated
nevertheless
treated
differently
equal
protection
clause
requires
least
rational
reason
difference
assure
persons
subject
legislation
regulation
indeed
treated
alike
like
circumstances
conditions
thus
appears
individual
singled
government
specter
arbitrary
classification
fairly
raised
equal
protection
clause
requires
rational
basis
difference
treatment
olech
seems
significant
olech
cases
relied
existence
clear
standard
departures
even
single
plaintiff
readily
assessed
indication
olech
zoning
board
exercising
discretionary
authority
based
subjective
individualized
determinations
least
regard
easement
length
however
typical
determinations
may
general
zoning
matter
see
breyer
concurring
result
rather
complaint
alleged
board
consistently
required
easement
subjected
olech
easement
differential
treatment
raised
concern
arbitrary
classification
therefore
required
state
provide
rational
basis
allegheny
pittsburgh
cited
olech
applicable
standard
market
value
county
departed
standard
basing
assessments
quite
dated
purchase
prices
suggestion
dramatic
differences
valuation
similar
property
parcels
based
subjective
considerations
sort
appraisers
often
rely
see
sioux
city
bridge
also
cited
olech
sort
case
recognizing
equal
protection
claim
one
taxpayer
property
assessed
percent
value
property
assessed
percent
without
regard
articulated
differences
properties
see
forms
state
action
however
nature
involve
discretionary
decisionmaking
based
vast
array
subjective
individualized
assessments
cases
rule
people
treated
alike
like
circumstances
conditions
violated
one
person
treated
differently
others
treating
like
individuals
differently
accepted
consequence
discretion
granted
situations
allowing
challenge
based
arbitrary
singling
particular
person
undermine
discretion
state
officials
entrusted
exercise
suppose
example
traffic
officer
stationed
busy
highway
people
often
drive
speed
limit
basis
upon
distinguish
officer
gives
one
people
ticket
may
good
english
say
officer
created
class
people
get
speeding
tickets
class
one
assuming
nature
particular
government
activity
speeders
stopped
ticketed
complaining
one
singled
reason
invoke
fear
improper
government
classification
complaint
rather
challenges
legitimacy
underlying
action
decision
ticket
speeders
circumstances
course
allegation
speeding
tickets
given
basis
race
sex
state
equal
protection
claim
discriminatory
classifications
implicate
basic
equal
protection
concerns
allowing
equal
protection
claim
ground
ticket
given
one
person
others
even
discernible
articulable
reason
incompatible
discretion
inherent
challenged
action
proper
challenge
nature
subjective
individualized
decision
subjective
individualized
principle
applies
clearly
employment
context
employment
decisions
quite
often
subjective
individualized
resting
wide
array
factors
difficult
articulate
quantify
engquist
points
nlike
zoning
official
public
employer
often
must
take
account
individual
personalities
interpersonal
relationships
employees
workplace
close
relationship
employer
employee
varied
needs
interests
involved
employment
context
mean
considerations
concerns
personality
conflicts
unreasonable
grounds
government
decisions
zoning
licensing
may
well
justify
different
treatment
public
employee
brief
petitioner
unlike
context
regulation
olech
treating
seemingly
similarly
situated
individuals
differently
employment
context
par
course
thus
theory
equal
protection
presupposes
like
individuals
treated
alike
treat
differently
classify
way
must
survive
least
rationality
review
simply
poor
fit
public
employment
context
treat
employees
differently
classify
way
raises
equal
protection
concerns
rather
simply
exercise
broad
discretion
typically
characterizes
relationship
challenge
one
treated
individually
context
instead
like
everyone
else
challenge
underlying
nature
government
action
course
say
equal
protection
clause
like
constitutional
provisions
apply
public
employers
indeed
cases
make
clear
equal
protection
clause
implicated
government
makes
decisions
employment
context
treating
distinct
groups
individuals
categorically
differently
see
beazer
upholding
city
exclusion
methadone
users
employment
review
martin
classification
teachers
complied
requirement
rational
violate
equal
protection
clause
murgia
upholding
mandatory
retirement
age
classification
based
age
review
dissent
broad
statement
excep
state
employees
fourteenth
amendment
protection
unequal
irrational
treatment
hands
state
post
opinion
stevens
thus
plainly
correct
never
found
equal
protection
clause
implicated
specific
circumstance
government
employers
alleged
made
individualized
subjective
personnel
decision
seemingly
arbitrary
irrational
manner
surprising
given
historical
understanding
nature
government
employment
long
ago
recognized
settled
principle
government
employment
absence
legislation
revoked
appointing
officer
mcelroy
basic
principle
employment
employee
may
terminated
reason
bad
reason
reason
reply
brief
petitioner
see
andrews
louisville
nashville
concept
discharge
implies
sort
statutory
contractual
standard
modifies
traditional
rule
contract
employment
terminable
either
party
thus
never
held
violation
constitution
government
employer
discharge
employee
based
substantively
incorrect
information
waters
plurality
opinion
see
also
connick
rdinary
dismissals
government
service
subject
judicial
review
even
reasons
dismissal
alleged
mistaken
unreasonable
citing
board
regents
state
colleges
roth
perry
sindermann
bishop
government
employee
generally
claim
based
constitution
waters
supra
plurality
opinion
see
bishop
supra
state
employers
course
take
personnel
actions
independently
violate
constitution
see
supra
recognition
theory
equal
protection
public
employment
context
claim
state
treated
employee
differently
others
bad
reason
reason
simply
contrary
concept
employment
constitution
require
repudiating
familiar
doctrine
sure
congress
part
replaced
employment
various
statutory
schemes
protecting
public
employees
discharge
impermissible
reasons
see
ed
supervisor
covered
federal
employee
may
discriminate
basis
conduct
adversely
affect
performance
employee
applicant
performance
others
see
also
brief
amicus
curiae
government
decision
limit
ability
public
employers
fire
act
legislative
grace
constitutional
mandate
indeed
recognizing
sort
claim
engquist
presses
jeopardize
delicate
balance
governments
struck
rights
public
employees
government
legitimate
purpose
ing
efficiency
integrity
discharge
official
duties
maintain
ing
proper
discipline
public
service
connick
supra
quoting
ex
parte
curtis
alterations
original
thus
example
although
federal
employees
covered
civil
service
reform
act
pub
congress
specifically
excluded
groups
employees
protection
see
ed
excluding
coverage
inter
alia
federal
bureau
investigation
central
intelligence
agency
defense
intelligence
agency
find
equal
protection
clause
subjects
government
equal
protection
review
every
allegedly
arbitrary
employment
action
undone
congress
careful
work
concluding
theory
equal
protection
application
public
employment
context
decide
guided
past
realization
government
offices
function
every
employment
decision
became
constitutional
matter
connick
supra
engquist
suggests
plaintiffs
need
claim
discrimination
basis
membership
class
group
rather
may
argue
treated
employers
worse
employees
similarly
situated
personnel
action
wronged
employee
conjure
claim
differential
treatment
suddenly
become
basis
federal
constitutional
claim
indeed
allegation
arbitrary
differential
treatment
made
nearly
every
instance
assertedly
wrongful
employment
action
hiring
firing
decisions
personnel
action
promotion
salary
work
assignments
theory
employees
treated
wrongfully
see
engquist
view
every
one
employment
decisions
government
employer
become
basis
equal
protection
complaint
engquist
assures
us
accepting
view
pose
much
practical
problem
specifically
engquist
argues
plaintiff
employment
case
prove
government
differential
treatment
intentional
plaintiff
treated
differently
similarly
situated
persons
unequal
treatment
rationally
related
legitimate
government
purpose
brief
petitioner
governmental
employment
decision
rational
whenever
discrimination
relates
legitimate
government
interest
practice
difficult
plaintiffs
show
government
failed
meet
standard
justice
stevens
makes
similar
argument
stating
handful
complaints
dismissed
well
advance
trial
post
agree
even
accepted
engquist
claim
difficult
plaintiff
show
employment
decision
arbitrary
submission
beside
point
practical
problem
allowing
claims
go
forward
context
easy
plaintiffs
prevail
governments
forced
defend
multitude
claims
first
place
courts
obliged
sort
search
proverbial
needle
haystack
equal
protection
clause
require
displacement
managerial
discretion
judicial
supervision
garcetti
ceballos
short
ratifying
theory
equal
protection
context
public
employment
impermissibly
constitutionalize
employee
grievance
connick
federal
appropriate
forum
review
multitude
personnel
decisions
made
daily
public
agencies
bishop
supra
public
employees
typically
variety
protections
sort
personnel
actions
engquist
complains
equal
protection
clause
one
judgment
appeals
affirmed
ordered
anup
engquist
petitioner
oregon
department
agriculture
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
june
justice
stevens
justice
souter
justice
ginsburg
join
dissenting
congress
provided
judicial
remedy
individuals
whose
federal
constitutional
rights
violated
state
action
prior
cases
refused
craft
new
remedies
violation
constitutional
rights
federal
employees
bush
lucas
nonconstitutional
claims
state
employees
bishop
wood
refusal
give
effect
congressionally
mandated
remedy
embodied
impermissible
avoid
result
today
concludes
engquist
suffered
constitutional
violation
thus
harm
remedied
holding
garcetti
ceballos
carves
novel
exception
state
employees
constitutional
rights
garcetti
created
new
substantive
rule
excepting
category
speech
state
employees
protection
first
amendment
today
creates
new
substantive
rule
excepting
state
employees
fourteenth
amendment
protection
unequal
irrational
treatment
hands
state
even
surgery
truly
necessary
prevent
governments
forced
defend
multitude
equal
protection
class
one
claims
use
scalpel
rather
decision
village
willowbrook
olech
per
curiam
applied
rule
accepted
part
equal
protection
jurisprudence
decades
unless
state
action
intentionally
singles
individual
class
individuals
adverse
treatment
supported
rational
justification
violates
fourteenth
amendment
command
state
shall
deny
person
within
jurisdiction
equal
protection
laws
opinion
olech
emphasized
legal
issue
whether
class
consisted
one
five
members
number
individuals
class
immaterial
equal
protection
analysis
outcome
case
determined
size
disadvantaged
class
majority
indeed
dispute
settled
principle
equal
protection
clause
protects
persons
groups
see
ante
outcome
olech
turn
fact
village
discriminating
property
owner
rather
employee
majority
dispute
strictures
equal
protection
clause
apply
role
employers
well
regulators
see
ante
indeed
made
clear
equal
protection
due
process
clauses
fourteenth
amendment
provisions
federal
constitution
afford
protection
employees
serve
government
well
served
provides
cause
action
citizens
injured
abridgment
protections
collins
harker
heights
rather
outcome
olech
dictated
solely
absence
rational
basis
discrimination
explained
cases
recognized
successful
equal
protection
claims
brought
one
plaintiff
alleges
intentionally
treated
differently
others
similarly
situated
rational
basis
difference
treatment
explained
purpose
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
secure
every
person
within
state
jurisdiction
intentional
arbitrary
discrimination
whether
occasioned
express
terms
statute
improper
execution
duly
constituted
agents
olech
complaint
also
alleged
village
demand
wholly
arbitrary
allegations
quite
apart
village
subjective
motivation
sufficient
state
claim
relief
traditional
equal
protection
analysis
internal
quotation
marks
citations
omitted
olech
engquist
alleged
state
actions
arbitrary
irrational
response
state
offered
explanation
whatsoever
decisions
claim
engquist
subpar
worker
even
personality
made
poor
fit
workplace
colleagues
simply
enjoy
working
fact
state
explicitly
disclaimed
existence
workplace
see
reply
brief
petitioner
jury
proceeded
find
respondents
intentionally
treated
engquist
differently
others
similarly
situated
respect
termination
employment
without
rational
basis
solely
arbitrary
vindictive
malicious
reasons
app
pet
cert
jury
verdict
thus
established
rational
basis
either
treating
engquist
differently
employees
termination
employment
state
dispute
finding
reasoning
olech
absence
justification
discrimination
sufficed
establish
constitutional
violation
majority
nonetheless
concludes
based
unique
considerations
applicable
government
acts
employer
class
one
theory
equal
protection
applicable
public
employment
context
ante
conclusion
based
upon
speculation
inapt
hypothetical
cases
incorrect
evaluation
importance
government
interest
preserving
regime
employment
reasoning
flawed
counts
ii
majority
asserts
decisions
carved
equal
protection
jurisprudence
employment
decisions
opposed
example
zoning
decisions
inherently
discretionary
agree
employers
must
free
exercise
discretionary
authority
clear
distinction
exercise
discretion
arbitrary
decision
discretionary
decision
represents
choice
one
among
two
rational
alternatives
see
hart
sacks
legal
process
basic
problems
making
application
law
tent
ed
defining
discretion
power
choose
two
courses
action
thought
permissible
choice
may
mistaken
unwise
without
irrational
arguments
favoring
alternative
closely
balanced
need
make
choice
may
justify
using
coin
toss
tie
breaker
moreover
equal
protection
clause
proscribes
arbitrary
decisions
decisions
unsupported
rational
basis
unwise
ones
accordingly
discretionary
decision
reasonably
conceivable
rational
justification
support
equal
protection
claim
truly
arbitrary
one
therefore
need
create
exception
context
order
prevent
discretionary
decisions
giving
rise
equal
protection
claims
hypothetical
situations
posited
majority
prove
otherwise
hypothetical
traffic
officer
described
opinion
ante
rational
basis
giving
ticket
every
speeder
passing
highway
inability
arrest
every
driver
sight
provides
adequate
justification
making
random
choice
group
equally
guilty
equally
accessible
violators
quite
correct
stating
allowing
equal
protection
claim
ground
ticket
given
one
person
others
even
discernible
articulable
reason
incompatible
discretion
inherent
challenged
action
ibid
justification
arrest
need
invoke
equal
protection
clause
officer
conduct
violate
fourth
amendment
noted
random
choice
among
rational
alternatives
violate
equal
protection
clause
comparable
hypothetical
decision
employment
context
supervisor
required
eliminate
one
position
due
involuntary
chooses
terminate
one
several
equally
culpable
employees
also
differs
instant
case
insofar
assumes
existence
rational
basis
individual
decision
fact
supervisor
might
able
explain
terminated
one
employee
rather
another
give
rise
equal
protection
claim
long
rational
basis
termination
decision
terminate
one
rather
culpable
employees
instead
using
scalpel
confine
class
one
claims
cases
involving
complete
absence
conceivable
rational
basis
adverse
action
differential
treatment
plaintiff
adopts
unnecessarily
broad
rule
tolerates
arbitrary
irrational
decisions
employment
context
iii
majority
decision
also
rests
premise
constitution
require
repudiating
th
familiar
doctrine
employment
ante
doctrine
applied
broadly
government
employment
see
mcauliffe
mayor
new
bedford
mass
many
years
theory
public
employment
may
denied
altogether
may
subjected
conditions
regardless
unreasonable
uniformly
rejected
keyishian
board
regents
univ
state
indeed
recent
constitutional
decisions
statutory
enactments
nullified
significance
doctrine
see
elrod
burns
rutan
republican
party
see
also
ed
supervisor
covered
federal
employee
may
discriminate
basis
conduct
adversely
affect
performance
employee
applicant
performance
others
accordingly
preserving
remnants
employment
provides
feeble
justification
creating
broad
exception
category
constitutional
iv
presumably
concern
actually
motivates
today
decision
fear
governments
forced
defend
multitude
class
one
claims
unless
wields
forthwith
experience
demonstrates
however
claims
brought
vast
majority
claims
asserted
complaints
advancing
claims
well
handful
dismissed
well
advance
trial
experience
also
demonstrates
fact
rare
cases
petty
tyrant
misused
governmental
power
proof
misuse
arbitrary
unsupported
conceivable
rational
basis
suffice
establish
violation
equal
protection
clause
without
requiring
victim
also
prove
tyrant
motivated
particular
variety
animus
allegations
complaint
plainly
identify
proverbial
needle
haystack
ante
federal
misconstrue
constitution
order
make
even
easier
dismiss
unmeritorious
claims
sum
compelling
reason
carve
arbitrary
decisions
category
equal
protection
violations
familiar
rational
review
standard
sufficiently
limit
claims
wholly
unjustified
employment
actions
accordingly
respectfully
dissent
footnotes
section
provides
person
color
statute
ordinance
regulation
custom
usage
state
territory
district
columbia
subjects
causes
subjected
citizen
person
within
jurisdiction
thereof
deprivation
rights
privileges
immunities
secured
constitution
laws
shall
liable
party
injured
action
law
suit
equity
proper
proceeding
redress
disclaimer
lower
dismissed
claim
discerned
reasonably
conceivable
state
facts
provide
rational
basis
state
actions
even
one
put
forth
state
fcc
beach
communications
disclaimer
however
negated
possibility
moreover
equal
protection
scrutiny
incompatible
employment
since
courts
applying
scrutiny
able
rely
conceivable
reason
government
action
government
therefore
need
explain
actual
reason
terminating
disciplining
employee
prior
ninth
circuit
decision
case
class
one
claims
arising
context
permitted
every
presented
one
yet
approximately
cases
district
courts
courts
appeals
addressing
claims
since
olech