Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2007 1

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

ENGQUIST v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUL-

TURE ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 07–474. Argued April 21, 2008—Decided June 9, 2008

Petitioner Engquist, an Oregon public employee, filed suit against re-

spondents—her agency, her supervisor, and a co-worker—asserting,

inter alia, claims under the Equal Protection Clause: She alleged she

had been discriminated against based on her race, sex, and national

origin, and she also brought a so-called “class-of-one” claim, alleging

that she was fired not because she was a member of an identified

class (unlike her race, sex, and national origin claims), but simply for

arbitrary, vindictive, and malicious reasons. The jury rejected the

class-membership equal protection claims, but found for Engquist on

her class-of-one claim. The Ninth Circuit reversed in relevant part.

Although recognizing that this Court had upheld a class-of-one equal

protection challenge to state legislative and regulatory action in Vil-

lage of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U. S. 562, the court below empha-

sized that this Court has routinely afforded government greater lee-

way when it acts as employer rather than regulator. The Court

concluded that extending the class-of-one theory to the public-

employment context would lead to undue judicial interference in

state employment practices and invalidate public at-will employ-

ment.

Held: The class-of-one theory of equal protection does not apply in the

public employment context. Pp. 4–16.

(a) There is a crucial difference between the government exercising

“the power to regulate or license, as lawmaker,” and acting “as pro-

prietor, to manage [its] internal operation.” Cafeteria & Restaurant

Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 896. Thus, in the public-

employment context, the Court has recognized that government has

significantly greater leeway in its dealings with citizen employees

2 ENGQUIST v. OREGON DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

Syllabus

than in bringing its sovereign power to bear on citizens at large. See,

e.g., O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U. S. 709, 721–722. The relevant prece-

dent establishes two main principles: First, 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 con-

text. See, e.g., id., at 721. Second, in striking the appropriate bal-

ance, the Court considers whether the claimed employee right impli-

cates the relevant constitutional provision’s basic concerns, or

whether the right can more readily give way to the requirements of

the government as employer. See, e.g., Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S.

138. Pp. 4–8.

(b) The Court’s equal protection jurisprudence has typically been

concerned with governmental classifications that “affect some groups

of citizens differently than others.” McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S.

420, 425. Olech did recognize that a class-of-one equal protection

claim can in some circumstances be sustained. Its recognition of that

theory, however, was not so much a departure from the principle that

the Equal Protection Clause is concerned with arbitrary government

classification, as it was an application of that principle to the facts in

that case: The government singled Olech out with regard to its regu-

lation of property, and the cases upon which the Court relied con-

cerned property assessment and taxation schemes that were applied

in a singular way to particular citizens. What seems to have been

significant in Olech and the cited cases was the existence of a clear

standard against which departures, even for a single plaintiff, could

be readily assessed. This differential treatment raised a concern of

arbitrary classification, and therefore required that the State provide

a rational basis for it. There are some forms of state action, however,

which by their nature involve discretionary decisionmaking based on

a vast array of subjective, individualized assessments. In such cases

treating like individuals differently is an accepted consequence of the

discretion granted to governmental officials. This principle applies

most clearly in the employment context, where decisions are often

subjective and individualized, resting on a wide array of factors that

are difficult to articulate and quantify. Unlike the context of arm’s-

length regulation, such as in Olech, treating seemingly similarly

situated individuals differently in the employment context is par for

the course. It is no proper challenge to what in its nature is a subjec-

tive and individualized decision that it was subjective and individual-

ized. That the Court has never found the Equal Protection Clause

implicated in this area is not surprising, given the historical under-

standing of the at-will nature of government employment. See, e.g.,

Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 896. Rec-

ognition of a claim that the State treated an employee differently

Cite as: 553 U. S. ____ (2008) 3

Syllabus

from others for a bad reason, or for no reason at all, is simply con-

trary to the at-will concept. The Constitution does not require repu-

diating that familiar doctrine. Finally, the Court is guided, as in the

past, by the “common-sense realization that government offices could

not function if every employment decision became a constitutional

matter.” Connick, supra, at 143. If class-of-one claims were recog-

nized 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.

The Equal Protection Clause does not require “[t]his displacement of

managerial discretion by judicial supervision.” Garcetti v. Ceballos,

547 U. S. 410, 423. Pp. 8–16.

478 F. 3d 985, affirmed.

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA,

KENNEDY, THOMAS, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a

dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

Cite as: 553 U. S. ____ (2008) 1

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-

ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 07–474

_________________

ANUP ENGQUIST, PETITIONER v. OREGON

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[June 9, 2008]

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the

Court.

The question in this case is whether a public employee

can state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause by

alleging that she was arbitrarily treated differently from

other similarly situated employees, with no assertion that

the different treatment was based on the employee’s

membership in any particular class. We hold that such a

“class-of-one” theory of equal protection has no place in the

public employment context.

I

Anup Engquist, the petitioner in this case, was hired in

1992 by Norma Corristan to be an international food

standard specialist for the Export Service Center (ESC), a

laboratory within the Oregon Department of Agriculture

(ODA). During the course of her employment, Engquist

experienced repeated problems with Joseph Hyatt, an-

other ODA employee, complaining to Corristan that he

had made false statements about her and otherwise made

her life difficult. Corristan responded by directing Hyatt

to attend diversity and anger management training.

2 ENGQUIST v. OREGON DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

Opinion of the Court

In 2001, John Szczepanski, an assistant director of

ODA, assumed responsibility over ESC, supervising Cor-

ristan, Hyatt, and Engquist. Szczepanski told a client

that he could not “control” Engquist, and that Engquist

and Corristan “would be gotten rid of.” When Engquist

and Hyatt both applied for a vacant managerial post

within ESC, Szczepanski chose Hyatt despite Engquist’s

greater experience in the relevant field. Later that year,

during a round of across-the-board budget cuts in Oregon,

Szczepanski eliminated Corristan’s position. Finally, on

January 31, 2002, Engquist was informed that her posi-

tion was being eliminated because of reorganization.

Engquist’s collective-bargaining agreement gave her the

opportunity either to “bump” to another position at her

level, or to take a demotion. She was found unqualified for

the only other position at her level and declined a demo-

tion, and was therefore effectively laid off.

Engquist subsequently brought suit in the United

States District Court for the District of Oregon against

ODA, Szczepanski, and Hyatt, all respondents here, alleg-

ing violations of federal antidiscrimination statutes, the

Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Four-

teenth Amendment, and state law. As to Engquist’s equal

protection claim, she alleged that the defendants discrimi-

nated against her on the basis of her race, sex, and na-

tional origin. She also brought what is known as a “class-

of-one” equal protection claim, alleging that she was fired

not because she was a member of an identified class

(unlike her race, sex, and national origin claims), but

simply for “arbitrary, vindictive, and malicious reasons.”

App. 10.

The District Court granted the respondents’ motion for

summary judgment as to some of Engquist’s claims, but

allowed others to go forward, including each of the equal

protection claims. As relevant to this case, the District

Court found Engquist’s class-of-one equal protection claim

Cite as: 553 U. S. ____ (2008) 3

Opinion of the Court

legally viable, deciding that the class-of-one theory was

fully applicable in the employment context. Civ. No. 02–

1637–AS (D. Ore., Sept. 14, 2004), App. 58, 2004 WL

2066748, *5. The court held that Engquist could succeed

on that theory if she could prove “that she was singled out

as a result of animosity on the part of Hyatt and Szcze-

panski”—i.e., “that their actions were spiteful efforts to

punish her for reasons unrelated to any legitimate state

objective”—and if she could demonstrate, on the basis of

that animosity, that “she was treated differently than

others who were similarly situated.” Ibid.

The jury rejected Engquist’s claims of discrimination for

membership in a suspect class—her race, sex, and na-

tional origin claims—but found in her favor on the class-

of-one claim. Specifically, the jury found that Hyatt and

Szczepanski “intentionally treat[ed] [Engquist] differently

than others similarly situated with respect to the denial of

her promotion, termination of her employment, or denial

of bumping rights without any rational basis and solely for

arbitrary, vindictive or malicious reasons.” App. to Pet.

for Cert. 3–4. The jury also found for Engquist on several

of her other claims, and awarded her $175,000 in compen-

satory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages.

The Court of Appeals reversed in relevant part. It

recognized that this Court had upheld a class-of-one equal

protection challenge to state legislative and regulatory

action in Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U. S. 562

(2000) (per curiam). 478 F. 3d 985, 992–993 (CA9 2007).

The court below also acknowledged that other Circuits had

applied Olech in the public employment context, id., at 993

(citing cases), but it disagreed with those courts on the

ground that our cases have routinely afforded government

greater leeway when it acts as employer rather than

regulator, id., at 993–996. The court concluded that ex-

tending the class-of-one theory of equal protection to the

public employment context would lead to undue judicial

4 ENGQUIST v. OREGON DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

Opinion of the Court

interference in state employment practices and “com-

pletely invalidate the practice of public at-will employ-

ment.” Id., at 995. The court accordingly held that the

class-of-one theory is “inapplicable to decisions made by

public employers with regard to their employees.” Id., at

996.

Judge Reinhardt dissented, “agree[ing] with the other

circuits that the class-of-one theory of equal protection is

applicable to public employment decisions.” Id., at 1010.

We granted certiorari to resolve this disagreement in the

lower courts, 552 U. S. __ (2008), and now affirm.

II

Engquist argues that the Equal Protection Clause for-

bids public employers from irrationally treating one em-

ployee differently from others similarly situated, regard-

less of whether the different treatment is based on the

employee’s membership in a particular class. She reasons

that in Olech, supra, we recognized in the regulatory

context a similar class-of-one theory of equal protection,

Brief for Petitioner 14–15; that the Equal Protection

Clause protects individuals, not classes, id., at 15–17; that

the Clause proscribes “discrimination arising not only

from a legislative act but also from the conduct of an

administrative official,” id., at 17; and that the Constitu-

tion applies to the State not only when it acts as regulator,

but also when it acts as employer, id., at 23–29. Thus,

Engquist concludes that class-of-one claims can be brought

against public employers just as against any other state

actors, id., at 29–32, and that differential treatment of

government employees—even when not based on member-

ship in a class or group—violates the Equal Protection

Clause unless supported by a rational basis, id., at 32, 39–

45.

We do not quarrel with the premises of Engquist’s ar-

gument. It is well settled that the Equal Protection

Cite as: 553 U. S. ____ (2008) 5

Opinion of the Court

Clause “protect[s] persons, not groups,” Adarand Con­

structors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 227 (1995) (emphasis

omitted), and that the Clause’s protections apply to ad-

ministrative as well as legislative acts, see, e.g., Raymond

v. Chicago Union Traction Co., 207 U. S. 20, 35–36 (1907).

It is equally well settled that States do not escape the

strictures of the Equal Protection Clause in their role as

employers. See, e.g., New York City Transit Authority v.

Beazer, 440 U. S. 568 (1979); Harrah Independent School

Dist. v. Martin, 440 U. S. 194 (1979) (per curiam); Massa­

chusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U. S. 307 (1976)

(per curiam). We do not, however, agree that Engquist’s

conclusion follows from these premises. Our traditional

view of the core concern of the Equal Protection Clause as

a shield against arbitrary classifications, combined with

unique considerations applicable when the government

acts as employer as opposed to sovereign, lead us to con-

clude that the class-of-one theory of equal protection does

not apply in the public employment context.

A

We have long held the view that there is a crucial differ-

ence, with respect to constitutional analysis, between the

government exercising “the power to regulate or license, as

lawmaker,” and the government acting “as proprietor, to

manage [its] internal operation.” Cafeteria & Restaurant

Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 896 (1961). This dis-

tinction has been particularly clear in our review of state

action in the context of public employment. Thus, “the

government as employer indeed has far broader powers

than does the government as sovereign.” Waters v. Chur­

chill, 511 U. S. 661, 671 (1994) (plurality opinion). “[T]he

extra power the government has in this area comes from

the nature of the government’s mission as employer.

Government agencies are charged by law with doing par-

ticular tasks. Agencies hire employees to help do those

6 ENGQUIST v. OREGON DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

Opinion of the Court

tasks as effectively and efficiently as possible.” Id., at

674–675. See also Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 150–

151 (1983) (explaining that the government has a legiti-

mate interest “in ‘promot[ing] efficiency and integrity in

the discharge of official duties, and [in] maintain[ing]

proper discipline in the public service’ ” (quoting Ex parte

Curtis, 106 U. S. 371, 373 (1882) (alterations in original))).

“The government’s interest in achieving its goals as effec-

tively and efficiently as possible is elevated from a rela-

tively subordinate interest when it acts as sovereign to a

significant one when it acts as employer.” Waters, supra,

at 675 (plurality opinion). Given the “common-sense

realization that government offices could not function if

every employment decision became a constitutional mat-

ter,” Connick, supra, at 143, “constitutional review of

government employment decisions must rest on different

principles than review of . . . restraints imposed by the

government as sovereign,” Waters, supra, at 674 (plurality

opinion).

In light of these basic principles, we have often recog-

nized that government has significantly greater leeway in

its dealings with citizen employees than it does when it

brings its sovereign power to bear on citizens at large.

Thus, for example, we have held that the Fourth Amend-

ment does not require public employers to obtain warrants

before conducting a search of an employee’s office.

O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U. S. 709, 721–722 (1987) (plural-

ity opinion). See also id., at 732 (SCALIA, J., concurring in

judgment). Although we recognized that the “legitimate

privacy interests of public employees in the private objects

they bring to the workplace may be substantial,” we found

that “[a]gainst these privacy interests . . . must be bal-

anced the realities of the workplace, which strongly sug-

gest that a warrant requirement would be unworkable.”

Id., at 721 (plurality opinion). We have also found that

the Due Process Clause does not protect a public employee

Cite as: 553 U. S. ____ (2008) 7

Opinion of the Court

from discharge, even when such discharge was mistaken

or unreasonable. See Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341, 350

(1976) (“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment is not a guarantee against incorrect or ill-

advised personnel decisions”).

Our public-employee speech cases are particularly in-

structive. In Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High

School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U. S. 563, 568 (1968), we

explained that, in analyzing a claim that a public em-

ployee was deprived of First Amendment rights by her

employer, we must seek “a balance between the interests

of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon mat-

ters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an

employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services

it performs through its employees.”

We analyzed the contours of this balance more fully in

Connick v. Myers, supra. We explained that the First

Amendment protects public-employee speech only when it

falls within the core of First Amendment protection—

speech on matters of public concern. We recognized that

the “ ‘First Amendment does not protect speech and as-

sembly only to the extent it can be characterized as politi-

cal,’ ” and that the government therefore could not gener-

ally prohibit or punish, in its capacity as sovereign, speech

on the ground that it does not touch upon matters of pub-

lic concern, id., at 147 (quoting Mine Workers v. Illinois

Bar Assn., 389 U. S. 217, 223 (1967)). But “[w]hen em-

ployee expression cannot be fairly considered as relating to

any matter of political, social, or other concern to the

community, government officials should enjoy wide lati-

tude in managing their offices.” Connick, 461 U. S., at

146. As we explained, “absent the most unusual circum-

stances, a federal court is not the appropriate forum in

which to review the wisdom of a personnel decision taken

by a public agency allegedly in reaction to the employee’s

behavior.” Id., at 147 (citing Bishop, supra, at 349–350).

8 ENGQUIST v. OREGON DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

Opinion of the Court

Our precedent in the public-employee context therefore

establishes two main principles: First, although govern-

ment employees do not lose their constitutional rights

when they accept their positions, those rights must be

balanced against the realities of the employment context.

Second, in striking the appropriate balance, we consider

whether the asserted employee right implicates the basic

concerns of the relevant constitutional provision, or

whether the claimed right can more readily give way to

the requirements of the government as employer. With

these principles in mind, we come to the question whether

a class-of-one theory of equal protection is cognizable in

the public employment context.

B

Our equal protection jurisprudence has typically been

concerned with governmental classifications that “affect

some groups of citizens differently than others.”

McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 425 (1961). See,

e.g., Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U. S. 600, 609 (1974) (“ ‘Equal

Protection’ . . . emphasizes disparity in treatment by a

State between classes of individuals whose situations are

arguably indistinguishable”); San Antonio Independent

School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 60 (1973) (Stewart,

J., concurring) (“[T]he basic concern of the Equal Protec-

tion Clause is with state legislation whose purpose or

effect is to create discrete and objectively identifiable

classes”). Plaintiffs in such cases generally allege that

they have been arbitrarily classified as members of an

“identifiable group.” Personnel Administrator of Mass. v.

Feeney, 442 U. S. 256, 279 (1979).

Engquist correctly argues, however, that we recognized

in Olech that an equal protection claim can in some cir-

cumstances be sustained even if the plaintiff has not

alleged class-based discrimination, but instead claims that

she has been irrationally singled out as a so-called “class

Cite as: 553 U. S. ____ (2008) 9

Opinion of the Court

of one.” In Olech, a property owner had asked the village

of Willowbrook to connect her property to the municipal

water supply. Although the village had required only a

15-foot easement from other property owners seeking

access to the water supply, the village conditioned Olech’s

connection on a grant of a 33-foot easement. Olech sued

the village, claiming that the village’s requirement of an

easement 18 feet longer than the norm violated the Equal

Protection Clause. Although Olech had not alleged that

the village had discriminated against her based on mem-

bership in an identifiable class, we held that her complaint

stated a valid claim under the Equal Protection Clause

because it alleged that she had “been intentionally treated

differently from others similarly situated and that there is

no rational basis for the difference in treatment.” 528

U. S., at 564 (citing Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota

County, 260 U. S. 441 (1923), and Allegheny Pittsburgh

Coal Co. v. Commission of Webster Cty., 488 U. S. 336

(1989)).

Recognition of the class-of-one theory of equal protection

on the facts in Olech was not so much a departure from

the principle that the Equal Protection Clause is con-

cerned with arbitrary government classification, as it was

an application of that principle. That case involved the

government’s regulation of property. Similarly, the cases

upon which the Court in Olech relied concerned property

assessment and taxation schemes. See Allegheny Pitts­

burgh, supra; Sioux City Bridge, supra. We expect such

legislative or regulatory classifications to apply “without

respect to persons,” to borrow a phrase from the judicial

oath. See 28 U. S. C. §453. As we explained long ago, the

Fourteenth Amendment “requires that all persons sub-

jected to . . . legislation shall be treated alike, under like

circumstances and conditions, both in the privileges con-

ferred and in the liabilities imposed.” Hayes v. Missouri,

120 U. S. 68, 71–72 (1887). When those who appear simi-

10 ENGQUIST v. OREGON DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

Opinion of the Court

larly situated are nevertheless treated differently, the

Equal Protection Clause requires at least a rational reason

for the difference, to assure that all persons subject to

legislation or regulation are indeed being “treated alike,

under like circumstances and conditions.” Thus, when it

appears that an individual is being singled out by the

government, the specter of arbitrary classification is fairly

raised, and the Equal Protection Clause requires a “ra-

tional basis for the difference in treatment.” Olech, 528

U. S., at 564.

What seems to have been significant in Olech and the

cases on which it relied was the existence of a clear stan-

dard against which departures, even for a single plaintiff,

could be readily assessed. There was no indication in

Olech that the zoning board was exercising discretionary

authority based on subjective, individualized determina-

tions—at least not with regard to easement length, how-

ever typical such determinations may be as a general

zoning matter. See id., at 565 (BREYER, J., concurring in

result). Rather, the complaint alleged that the board

consistently required only a 15-foot easement, but sub-

jected Olech to a 33-foot easement. This differential

treatment raised a concern of arbitrary classification, and

we therefore required that the State provide a rational

basis for it.

In Allegheny Pittsburgh, cited by the Olech Court, the

applicable standard was market value, but the county

departed from that standard in basing some assessments

on quite dated purchase prices. Again, there was no sug-

gestion that the “dramatic differences in valuation” for

similar property parcels, 488 U. S., at 341, were based on

subjective considerations of the sort on which appraisers

often rely, see id., at 338–342, 345. Sioux City Bridge, also

cited in Olech, was the same sort of case, recognizing an

equal protection claim when one taxpayer’s property was

assessed at 100 percent of its value, while all other prop-

Cite as: 553 U. S. ____ (2008) 11

Opinion of the Court

erty was assessed at 55 percent, without regard to articu-

lated differences in the properties. See 260 U. S., at 445–

447.

There are some forms of state action, however, which by

their nature involve discretionary decisionmaking based

on a vast array of subjective, individualized assessments.

In such cases the rule that people should be “treated alike,

under like circumstances and conditions” is not violated

when one person is treated differently from others, be-

cause treating like individuals differently is an accepted

consequence of the discretion granted. In such situations,

allowing a challenge based on the arbitrary singling out of

a particular person would undermine the very discretion

that such state officials are entrusted to exercise.

Suppose, for example, that a traffic officer is stationed

on a busy highway where people often drive above the

speed limit, and there is no basis upon which to distin-

guish them. If the officer gives only one of those people a

ticket, it may be good English to say that the officer has

created a class of people that did not get speeding tickets,

and a “class of one” that did. But assuming that it is in

the nature of the particular government activity that not

all speeders can be stopped and ticketed, complaining that

one has been singled out for no reason does not invoke the

fear of improper government classification. Such a com-

plaint, rather, challenges the legitimacy of the underlying

action itself—the decision to ticket speeders under such

circumstances. Of course, an allegation that speeding

tickets are given out on the basis of race or sex would state

an equal protection claim, because such discriminatory

classifications implicate basic equal protection concerns.

But allowing an equal protection claim on the ground that

a ticket was given to one person and not others, even if for

no discernible or articulable reason, would be incompatible

with the discretion inherent in the challenged action. It is

no proper challenge to what in its nature is a subjective,

12 ENGQUIST v. OREGON DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

Opinion of the Court

individualized decision that it was subjective and indi-

vidualized.

This principle applies most clearly in the employment

context, for employment decisions are quite often subjec-

tive and individualized, resting on a wide array of factors

that are difficult to articulate and quantify. As Engquist

herself points out, “[u]nlike the zoning official, the public

employer often must take into account the individual

personalities and interpersonal relationships of employees

in the workplace. The close relationship between the

employer and employee, and the varied needs and inter-

ests involved in the employment context, mean that con-

siderations such as concerns over personality conflicts that

would be unreasonable as grounds for ‘arm’s-length’ gov-

ernment decisions (e.g., zoning, licensing) may well justify

different treatment of a public employee.” Brief for Peti-

tioner 48. Unlike the context of arm’s-length regulation,

such as in Olech, treating seemingly similarly situated

individuals differently in the employment context is par

for the course.

Thus, the class-of-one theory of equal protection—which

presupposes that like individuals should be treated alike,

and that to treat them differently is to classify them in a

way that must survive at least rationality review—is

simply a poor fit in the public employment context. To

treat employees differently is not to classify them in a way

that raises equal protection concerns. Rather, it is simply

to exercise the broad discretion that typically character-

izes the employer-employee relationship. A challenge that

one has been treated individually in this context, instead

of like everyone else, is a challenge to the underlying

nature of the government action.

Of course, that is not to say that the Equal Protection

Clause, like other constitutional provisions, does not apply

to public employers. Indeed, our cases make clear that the

Equal Protection Clause is implicated when the govern-

Cite as: 553 U. S. ____ (2008) 13

Opinion of the Court

ment makes class-based decisions in the employment

context, treating distinct groups of individuals categori-

cally differently. See, e.g., Beazer, 440 U. S., at 593 (up-

holding city’s exclusion of methadone users from employ-

ment under rational-basis review); Martin, 440 U. S., at

199–201 (classification between teachers who had com-

plied with a continuing-education requirement and those

who had not is rational and does not violate the Equal

Protection Clause); Murgia, 427 U. S., at 314–317 (uphold-

ing a mandatory retirement age—a classification based on

age—under rational-basis review). The dissent’s broad

statement that we “excep[t] state employees from the

Fourteenth Amendment’s protection against unequal and

irrational treatment at the hands of the State,” post, at 2

(opinion of STEVENS, J.), is thus plainly not correct. But

we have never found the Equal Protection Clause impli-

cated in the specific circumstance where, as here, govern-

ment employers are alleged to have made an individual-

ized, subjective personnel decision in a seemingly

arbitrary or irrational manner.

This is not surprising, given the historical understand-

ing of the nature of government employment. We long ago

recognized the “settled principle that government em-

ployment, in the absence of legislation, can be revoked at

the will of the appointing officer.” McElroy, 367 U. S., at

896. The basic principle of at-will employment is that an

employee may be terminated for a “ ‘good reason, bad

reason, or no reason at all.’ ” Reply Brief for Petitioner 27.

See Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 406 U. S.

320, 324 (1972) (“[T]he very concept of ‘wrongful discharge’

implies some sort of statutory or contractual standard that

modifies the traditional common-law rule that a contract

of employment is terminable by either party at will”).

Thus, “[w]e have never held that it is a violation of the

Constitution for a government employer to discharge an

employee based on substantively incorrect information.”

14 ENGQUIST v. OREGON DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

Opinion of the Court

Waters, 511 U. S., at 679 (plurality opinion). See also

Connick, 461 U. S., at 146–147 (“[O]rdinary dismissals

from government service . . . are not subject to judicial

review even if the reasons for the dismissal are alleged to

be mistaken or unreasonable” (citing Board of Regents of

State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 (1972); Perry v.

Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593 (1972); and Bishop, 426 U. S.

341)). “And an at-will government employee . . . generally

has no claim based on the Constitution at all.” Waters,

supra, at 679 (plurality opinion). See, e.g., Bishop, supra,

at 349–350.

State employers cannot, of course, take personnel ac-

tions that would independently violate the Constitution.

See supra, at 5–8. But recognition of a class-of-one theory

of equal protection in the public employment context—

that is, a claim that the State treated an employee differ-

ently from others for a bad reason, or for no reason at all—

is simply contrary to the concept of at-will employment.

The Constitution does not require repudiating that famil-

iar doctrine.

To be sure, Congress and all the States have, for the

most part, replaced at-will employment with various

statutory schemes protecting public employees from dis-

charge for impermissible reasons. See, e.g., 5 U. S. C.

§2302(b)(10) (2006 ed.) (supervisor of covered federal

employee may not “discriminate . . . on the basis of con-

duct which does not adversely affect the performance of

the employee or applicant or the performance of others”).

See also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 20–21.

But a government’s decision to limit the ability of public

employers to fire at will is an act of legislative grace, not

constitutional mandate.

Indeed, recognizing the sort of claim Engquist presses

could jeopardize the delicate balance governments have

struck between the rights of public employees and “the

government’s legitimate purpose in ‘promot[ing] efficiency

Cite as: 553 U. S. ____ (2008) 15

Opinion of the Court

and integrity in the discharge of official duties, and [in]

maintain[ing] proper discipline in the public service.’ ”

Connick, supra, at 151 (quoting Ex parte Curtis, 106 U. S.,

at 373; alterations in original). Thus, for example, al-

though most federal employees are covered by the Civil

Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95–454, Congress has

specifically excluded some groups of employees from its

protection, see, e.g., 5 U. S. C. §2302(a)(2)(C) (2006 ed.)

(excluding from coverage, inter alia, the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the

Defense Intelligence Agency). Were we to find that the

Equal Protection Clause subjects the Government to equal

protection review for every allegedly arbitrary employ-

ment action, we will have undone Congress’s (and the

States’) careful work.

In concluding that the class-of-one theory of equal pro-

tection has no application in the public employment con-

text—and that is all we decide—we are guided, as in the

past, by the “common-sense realization that government

offices could not function if every employment decision

became a constitutional matter.” Connick, supra, at 143.

If, as Engquist suggests, plaintiffs need not claim dis-

crimination on the basis of membership in some class or

group, but rather may argue only that they were treated

by their employers worse than other employees similarly

situated, any personnel action in which a wronged em-

ployee can conjure up a claim of differential treatment will

suddenly become the basis for a federal constitutional

claim. Indeed, an allegation of arbitrary differential

treatment could be made in nearly every instance of an

assertedly wrongful employment action—not only hiring

and firing decisions, but any personnel action, such as

promotion, salary, or work assignments—on the theory

that other employees were not treated wrongfully. See

478 F. 3d, at 995. On Engquist’s view, every one of these

employment decisions by a government employer would

16 ENGQUIST v. OREGON DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

Opinion of the Court

become the basis for an equal protection complaint.

Engquist assures us that accepting her view would not

pose too much of a practical problem. Specifically,

Engquist argues that a plaintiff in a class-of-one employ-

ment case would have to prove that the government’s

differential treatment was intentional, that the plaintiff

was treated differently from other similarly situated

persons, and that the unequal treatment was not ration-

ally related to a legitimate government purpose. Brief for

Petitioner 36–39. And because a “governmental employ-

ment decision is . . . rational whenever the discrimination

relates to a legitimate government interest,” it is in prac-

tice “difficult for plaintiffs to show that the government

has failed to meet this standard.” Id., at 41. JUSTICE

STEVENS makes a similar argument, stating “that all but a

handful [of class-of-one complaints] are dismissed well in

advance of trial.” Post, at 7.

We agree that, even if we accepted Engquist’s claim, it

would be difficult for a plaintiff to show that an employ-

ment decision is arbitrary. But this submission is beside

the point. The practical problem with allowing class-of-

one claims to go forward in this context is not that it will

be too easy for plaintiffs to prevail, but that governments

will be forced to defend a multitude of such claims in the

first place, and courts will be obliged to sort through them

in a search for the proverbial needle in a haystack. The

Equal Protection Clause does not require “[t]his displace-

ment of managerial discretion by judicial supervision.”

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U. S. 410, 423 (2006).

In short, ratifying a class-of-one theory of equal protec-

tion in the context of public employment would impermis-

sibly “constitutionalize the employee grievance.” Connick,

461 U. S., at 154. “The federal court is not the appropriate

forum in which to review the multitude of personnel deci-

sions that are made daily by public agencies.” Bishop,

supra, at 349. Public employees typically have a variety of

Cite as: 553 U. S. ____ (2008) 17

Opinion of the Court

protections from just the sort of personnel actions about

which Engquist complains, but the Equal Protection

Clause is not one of them.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Cite as: 553 U. S. ____ (2008) 1

STEVENS, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 07–474

_________________

ANUP ENGQUIST, PETITIONER v. OREGON

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[June 9, 2008]

JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER and

JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting.

Congress has provided a judicial remedy for individuals

whose federal constitutional rights are violated by state

action, 42 U. S. C. §1983.1 In prior cases, we have refused

to craft new remedies for the violation of constitutional

rights of federal employees, Bush v. Lucas, 462 U. S. 367

(1983), or for the nonconstitutional claims of state employ-

ees, Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341 (1976). But refusal to

give effect to the congressionally mandated remedy em-

bodied in §1983 would be impermissible. To avoid this

result, the Court today concludes that Engquist suffered

no constitutional violation at all, and that there was thus

no harm to be remedied. In so holding, the Court—as it

did in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U. S. 410 (2006)—carves a

novel exception out of state employees’ constitutional

rights. In Garcetti, the Court created a new substantive

——————

1 Section 1983 provides that “[e]very person who, under color of any

statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Terri-

tory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any

citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction

thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party

injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding

for redress . . . .”

2 ENGQUIST v. OREGON DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

STEVENS, J., dissenting

rule excepting a category of speech by state employees

from the protection of the First Amendment. Today, the

Court creates a new substantive rule excepting state

employees from the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection

against unequal and irrational treatment at the hands of

the State. Even if some surgery were truly necessary to

prevent governments from being forced to defend a multi-

tude of equal protection “class of one” claims, the Court

should use a scalpel rather than a meat-axe.

I

Our decision in Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528

U. S. 562 (2000) (per curiam), applied a rule that had been

an accepted part of our equal protection jurisprudence for

decades: Unless state action that intentionally singles out

an individual, or a class of individuals, for adverse treat-

ment is supported by some rational justification, it vio-

lates the Fourteenth Amendment’s command that no State

shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal

protection of the laws.”

Our opinion in Olech emphasized that the legal issue

would have been the same whether the class consisted of

one or five members, because “the number of individuals

in a class is immaterial for equal protection analysis.” Id.,

at 564, n. The outcome of that case was not determined by

the size of the disadvantaged class, and the majority does

not—indeed cannot—dispute the settled principle that the

Equal Protection Clause protects persons, not groups. See

ante, at 4–5.

Nor did the outcome in Olech turn on the fact that the

Village was discriminating against a property owner

rather than an employee. The majority does not dispute

that the strictures of the Equal Protection Clause apply to

the States in their role as employers as well as regulators.

See ante, at 5. And indeed, we have made clear that “the

Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Four-

Cite as: 553 U. S. ____ (2008) 3

STEVENS, J., dissenting

teenth Amendment, and other provisions of the Federal

Constitution afford protection to employees who serve the

government as well as to those who are served by them,

and §1983 provides a cause of action for all citizens in-

jured by an abridgment of those protections.” Collins v.

Harker Heights, 503 U. S. 115, 119–120 (1992).

Rather, the outcome of Olech was dictated solely by the

absence of a rational basis for the discrimination. As we

explained:

“Our cases have recognized successful equal protec-

tion claims brought by a ‘class of one,’ where the

plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally

treated differently from others similarly situated and

that there is no rational basis for the difference in

treatment. In so doing, we have explained that ‘[t]he

purpose of the equal protection clause of the Four-

teenth Amendment is to secure every person within

the State’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbi-

trary discrimination, whether occasioned by express

terms of a statute or by its improper execution

through duly constituted agents.’

“[Olech’s] complaint also alleged that the Village’s

demand was ‘irrational and wholly arbitrary’ . . . .

These allegations, quite apart from the Village’s sub-

jective motivation, are sufficient to state a claim for

relief under traditional equal protection analysis.”

528 U. S., at 564, 565 (some internal quotation marks

and citations omitted).

Here, as in Olech, Engquist alleged that the State’s

actions were arbitrary and irrational. In response, the

State offered no explanation whatsoever for its decisions;

it did not claim that Engquist was a subpar worker, or

even that her personality made her a poor fit in the work-

place or that her colleagues simply did not enjoy working

with her. In fact, the State explicitly disclaimed the exis-

4 ENGQUIST v. OREGON DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

STEVENS, J., dissenting

tence of any workplace or performance-based rationale.2

See, e.g., Reply Brief for Petitioner 17, 19. The jury pro-

ceeded to find that the respondents intentionally treated

Engquist “differently than others similarly situated with

respect to the . . . termination of her employment . . .

without any rational basis and solely for arbitrary, vindic-

tive or malicious reasons.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 3–4. The

jury’s verdict thus established that there was no rational

basis for either treating Engquist differently from other

employees or for the termination of her employment. The

State does not dispute this finding. Under our reasoning

in Olech, the absence of any justification for the discrimi-

nation sufficed to establish the constitutional violation.

The majority nonetheless concludes, based on “unique

considerations applicable when the government acts as

employer,” that the “class of one” theory of equal protec-

tion is not applicable in the public employment context.

Ante, at 5. Its conclusion is based upon speculation about

inapt hypothetical cases, and an incorrect evaluation of

the importance of the government’s interest in preserving

a regime of “at will” employment. Its reasoning is flawed

on both counts.

II

The majority asserts that public-employment decisions

should be carved out of our equal protection jurisprudence

because employment decisions (as opposed to, for example,

zoning decisions) are inherently discretionary. I agree

that employers must be free to exercise discretionary

authority. But there is a clear distinction between an

exercise of discretion and an arbitrary decision. A discre-

——————

2 But for this disclaimer, the lower court could have dismissed the

claim if it discerned “any reasonably conceivable state of facts that

could provide a rational basis for the [State’s actions],” even one not put

forth by the State. FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U. S. 307,

313 (1993). The disclaimer, however, negated that possibility.

Cite as: 553 U. S. ____ (2008) 5

STEVENS, J., dissenting

tionary decision represents a choice of one among two or

more rational alternatives. See 1 H. Hart & A. Sacks, The

Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Applica-

tion of Law 162 (Tent. ed. 1958) (defining discretion as

“the power to choose between two or more courses of action

each of which is thought of as permissible”). The choice

may be mistaken or unwise without being irrational. If

the arguments favoring each alternative are closely bal-

anced, the need to make a choice may justify using a coin

toss as a tie breaker. Moreover, the Equal Protection

Clause proscribes arbitrary decisions—decisions unsup-

ported by any rational basis—not unwise ones. Accord-

ingly, a discretionary decision with any “reasonably con-

ceivable” rational justification will not support an equal

protection claim; only a truly arbitrary one will. There is

therefore no need to create an exception for the public-

employment context in order to prevent these discretion-

ary decisions from giving rise to equal protection claims.

The hypothetical situations posited by the majority do

not prove otherwise. The hypothetical traffic officer de-

scribed in the Court’s opinion, ante, at 11, had a rational

basis for giving a ticket to every speeder passing him on

the highway. His inability to arrest every driver in sight

provides an adequate justification for making a random

choice from a group of equally guilty and equally accessi-

ble violators. As such, the Court is quite correct in stating

that “allowing an equal protection claim on the ground

that a ticket was given to one person and not others, even

if for no discernible or articulable reason, would be incom-

patible with the discretion inherent in the challenged

action.” Ibid. If there were no justification for the arrest,

there would be no need to invoke the Equal Protection

Clause because the officer’s conduct would violate the

Fourth Amendment. But as noted, a random choice

among rational alternatives does not violate the Equal

Protection Clause.

6 ENGQUIST v. OREGON DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

STEVENS, J., dissenting

A comparable hypothetical decision in the employment

context (e.g., a supervisor who is required to eliminate one

position due to an involuntary reduction-in-force and who

chooses to terminate one of several equally culpable em-

ployees) also differs from the instant case insofar as it

assumes the existence of a rational basis for the individual

decision. The fact that a supervisor might not be able to

explain why he terminated one employee rather than

another will not give rise to an equal protection claim so

long as there was a rational basis for the termination itself

and for the decision to terminate just one, rather than all,

of the culpable employees.

Instead of using a scalpel to confine so-called “class of

one” claims to cases involving a complete absence of any

conceivable rational basis for the adverse action and the

differential treatment of the plaintiff, the Court adopts an

unnecessarily broad rule that tolerates arbitrary and

irrational decisions in the employment context.

III

The majority’s decision also rests on the premise that

“[t]he Constitution does not require repudiating th[e]

familiar doctrine” of at-will employment. Ante, at 14. In

the 1890’s that doctrine applied broadly to government

employment, see McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford, 155

Mass. 216, 29 N. E. 517 (1892), but for many years now

“ ‘the theory that public employment which may be denied

altogether may be subjected to any conditions, regardless

of how unreasonable, has been uniformly rejected.’ ” Keyi-

shian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385

U. S. 589, 605–606 (1967). Indeed, recent constitutional

decisions and statutory enactments have all but nullified

the significance of the doctrine. See, e.g., Elrod v. Burns,

427 U. S. 347 (1976); Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497

U. S. 62 (1990); see also 5 U. S. C. §2302(b)(10) (2006 ed.)

(supervisor of covered federal employee may not “dis-

Cite as: 553 U. S. ____ (2008) 7

STEVENS, J., dissenting

criminate . . . on the basis of conduct which does not ad-

versely affect the performance of the employee or appli-

cant or the performance of others”). Accordingly, preserv-

ing the remnants of “at-will” employment provides a feeble

justification for creating a broad exception to a well-

established category of constitutional protections.3

IV

Presumably the concern that actually motivates today’s

decision is fear that governments will be forced to defend

against a multitude of “class of one” claims unless the

Court wields its meat-axe forthwith. Experience demon-

strates, however, that these claims are brought infre-

quently,4 that the vast majority of such claims are as-

serted in complaints advancing other claims as well, and

that all but a handful are dismissed well in advance of

trial. Experience also demonstrates that there are in fact

rare cases in which a petty tyrant has misused govern-

mental power. Proof that such misuse was arbitrary

because unsupported by any conceivable rational basis

should suffice to establish a violation of the Equal Protec-

tion Clause without requiring its victim also to prove that

the tyrant was motivated by a particular variety of class-

based animus. When the allegations of a complaint

plainly identify “the proverbial needle in a haystack,” ante,

at 16, a federal court should not misconstrue the Constitu-

tion in order to make it even easier to dismiss unmeritori-

——————

3 Moreover, equal protection scrutiny is not incompatible with at-will

employment since courts applying rational-basis scrutiny are able to

rely on any conceivable reason for government action, and the govern-

ment therefore need not explain its actual reason for terminating or

disciplining the employee.

4 Prior to the Ninth Circuit’s decision this case, “class of one” claims

arising in the public-employment context were permitted by every court

that was presented with one. Yet there have been only approximately

150 cases—both in the district courts and the courts of appeals—

addressing such claims since Olech.

8 ENGQUIST v. OREGON DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

STEVENS, J., dissenting

ous claims.

* * *

In sum, there is no compelling reason to carve arbitrary

public-employment decisions out of the well-established

category of equal protection violations when the familiar

rational review standard can sufficiently limit these

claims to only wholly unjustified employment actions.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.