TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

High Court Clarifies 'Class Of One'

ADVERTISEMENT

The New York Times

Published: June 10, 2008

WASHINGTON - Government workers singled out for arbitrary, irrational or vindictive treatment by supervisors will find no relief in the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, unless the mistreatment is because of discrimination on the basis of race, sex or another protected category.

The 6-3 decision, with an opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., rejected the argument that an individual employee who is not the victim of group-based discrimination can suffer a denial of equal protection within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

A cryptic Supreme Court decision eight years ago accepted the theory that an individual can comprise a "class of one" for equal protection purposes and can sue a government agency for mistreatment that has no objectively rational explanation. The question soon arose whether the principle it announced applied to government employment as well as to government regulation. Nearly every federal appeals court to consider that question answered yes, but on Monday the Supreme Court said no.

The "class-of-one theory of equal protection" was "simply a poor fit in the public employment context," Roberts said, explaining that the government needed "broad discretion" to make "subjective and individualized" decisions concerning its work force.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said there is a "clear distinction between an exercise of discretion and an arbitrary decision."
SUPREME COURT ACTION
•Agreed to review for a third time the $79.5 million punitive damages judgment the family of a longtime smoker won against Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA.

•Limited the ability of companies to collect multiple royalties on patents, the latest high court ruling to scale back the power of patent-holders.

•Made it harder for whistleblowers to prove government subcontractors or other indirect recipients of federal funds engaged in fraud under the federal False Claims Act.

•Made it easier for plaintiffs to use the powerful federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in lawsuits alleging fraud.

•Rejected appeals from workers who want their employers to pay them for time spent putting on and taking off protective clothing.

Source: The Associated Press

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT