Personnel Decision

The Supreme Court gives government some needed leeway in employment matters.

THE SUPREME COURT yesterday ruled wisely that not every personnel decision made by the government should be subject to constitutional challenge.

In a 6 to 3 ruling in Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture , the court found against an Oregon state worker who filed a "class of one" lawsuit against her employer, claiming that the state had violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by making arbitrary and unreasonable decisions that denied her promotions and ultimately led to her departure. In a "class of one" claim, an individual need not prove she was discriminated against because of her race or sex, only that she was treated differently from similarly situated people and that there was no rational basis for that difference. The Supreme Court has allowed such "class of one" cases in matters involving government regulatory decisions that departed from established norms and adversely affected one person. The majority of the federal appeals courts to have ruled on the matter relied on that precedent to also allow "class of one" suits against the government in employment disputes. In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens pointed out that only 150 "class of one" cases have been brought since 2000, when the Supreme Court allowed such a suit in a case involving an easement dispute.

But in an opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the majority said that allowing such lawsuits against a government employer would not only be constitutionally incorrect, it would be folly. Personnel decisions are by their nature subjective; job candidates may seem equally qualified on paper, but less tangible qualities such as personality or attitude can legitimately catapult one contender over another. As long as the government is not engaged in prohibited discrimination based, for example, on race or sex, it should be allowed to weigh these considerations without fear of being sued for a constitutional breach.

Public employees still have at their disposal robust legal tools to ensure they're being treated fairly, including traditional claims of discrimination under the 14th Amendment; many are also protected by collective bargaining agreements or civil service rules. The government, no less than private businesses, acts intelligently when it hires the most qualified people and runs a workplace free from discrimination. But "class of one" cases are not the answer when the government does not. And judging by the relatively few cases filed in recent years, they never were.