explaining that “[i]dentifying the disparity in treatment is especially important in class-of-one cases”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “[i]dentifying the disparity in treatment is especially important in class-of-one cases”
- Fourteenth Amendment does not protect the right to a specific job; plaintiffs failed to state viable equal protection claim when they complained defendants interfered with their business and treated them unfairly but failed to allege they were similarly situated to other businesses or that such businesses were treated more favorably under similar circumstances
- defining a “class-of-one” claim as one that does not allege that the government targeted the plaintiff because of his “membership in a class or group”
- “Absent a constitutional violation, there is no actionable conspiracy claim.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*998 LOKEN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the court except the Equal Protection Clause analysis in Part II.B.2. As to that Part, I concur in the judgment because plaintiffs failed to make an adequate showing that any officer’s discretionary actions were the product of intentional discrimination, malice, or other improper motive.