Law & Courts

High Court Hears Closely Watched Employment Case

School boards’ group, NEA weigh in on firing
By Mark Walsh — April 24, 2008 4 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

Includes updates and/or revisions.

May a public employee be fired just out of spite?

That, in essence, was the question before the U.S. Supreme Court last week in a case being watched closely by groups representing teachers and school boards.

The question assumes, as in the case of a food-standards specialist for the state of Oregon whose job was eliminated amid tensions with her boss, that the worker isn’t protected by a union contract or as a member of a group shielded from employment discrimination based on race, sex, or other protected classes.

The issue before the justices in Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture (Case No. 07-474) involves whether public employees may press federal lawsuits under the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause when an adverse job action is based on subjective or malicious reasons targeted only at them. Such a suit is called a “class of one” claim.

“What about: He didn’t like him?” Justice Stephen G. Breyer wondered about a hypothetical spiteful boss. “I’m the supervisor; I didn’t like him.”

Neal Katyal, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who was arguing the case for the Oregon worker, said an adverse job action against that worker would pass muster under the equal-protection clause as long as the action had a rational basis, such as being “related to government efficiency.”

The National Education Association joined with several other unions in filing a friend-of-the-court brief on the side of the worker. The brief argues that a federal appeals court incorrectly barred class-of-one claims for public employees under the equal-protection clause partly out of an unwarranted fear that allowing such claims could turn everyday job disputes in public agencies into federal cases.

The National School Boards Association, meanwhile, filed a brief on Oregon’s side that expresses concern that federal courts “will become super personnel departments, responsible for addressing every grievance made by school district employees across the country.”

No Flood of Claims

The Bush administration expressed the same concern during the April 21 oral arguments.

“The problem with those [class-of-one] claims is that they would constitutionalize routine employee grievances and impose a for-cause requirement on public employers, notwithstanding the long tradition of at-will public employment,” said Lisa S. Blatt, an assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, who was arguing on Oregon’s side.

See Also

For more stories on this topic see Law and Courts and our Federal news page.

The justices and the lawyers debated whether most state and local government employment was truly “at will,” meaning that workers can be dismissed without cause for virtually any nondiscriminatory reason. Teachers in many states are protected first by their union contracts, and many states have civil-service procedures governing dismissals.

But at-will employment prevails for many government workers, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy expressed worry that ruling for the worker in the Oregon case would create “a national for-cause employment system. You can only be … fired for cause.”

Mr. Katyal pointed out that two federal circuit courts had recognized class-of-one claims for public employees for more than 25 years, and that “it’s the law of the land” in nine of the 12 geographic circuit courts.

“We haven’t had that entire flood [of claims], nor have we had the harm to at-will employment,” he said. “Plaintiffs aren’t going to bring these claims when they know they are so hard to win.”

Justice Kennedy and his colleagues aggressively questioned both sides.

“It seems to me that you want us to write an opinion that says there are some instances where the government can act arbitrarily and unreasonably,” Justice Kennedy said to Janet A. Metcalf, an assistant attorney general of Oregon, who was arguing the state’s case.

“We would ask you to write an opinion … that says that, within the public-employment context, there are no class-of-one equal-protection claims,” Ms. Metcalf said.

Age-Discrimination Case

Last week was the high court’s last session for oral arguments of the current term. On April 23, the justices considered another employment case that has drawn the interest of the National School Boards Association.

In Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (No. 06-1505), the court will rule on a particular type of claim under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The case involves a group of workers laid off from a federally contracted research facility, who allege an illegal disparate impact because 30 of 31 workers slated for the layoff were over 40 years old, which is the age when employees first come under the protection of the ADEA.The legal question involves whether the workers or the employer bear the burden of persuasion in court on whether the disparate impact on the older workers could be justified based on reasonable factors other than age.

The NSBA takes virtually every opportunity it can to remind the court that school districts are large employers with a stake in many cases involving job-discrimination law.

“Collectively, the number of people school districts employ is greater than Wal-Mart and greater than the Department of Defense,” Thomas E.M. Hutton, a senior staff lawyer with NSBA, said in an interview. “So these employment cases are important to schools, and schools are important to how this law is formed.”

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed on the side of the employer in the age-discrimination case, the NSBA noted that school districts were adopting flexible policies such as early-retirement programs, district reorganizations involving the redistribution of personnel, and other actions that could have a disparate impact on their older workers.

Both cases are expected to be decided by the end of the court’s term in late June.

A version of this article appeared in the April 23, 2008 edition of Education Week as High Court Hears Closely Watched Employment Case

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Law & Courts Webinar
Future of the First Amendment: Exploring Trends in High School Students’ Views of Free Speech
Learn how educators are navigating student free speech issues and addressing controversial topics like gender and race in the classroom.
Content provided by The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Student Well-Being Webinar
Start Strong With Solid SEL Implementation: Success Strategies for the New School Year
Join Satchel Pulse to learn why implementing a solid SEL program at the beginning of the year will deliver maximum impact to your students.
Content provided by Satchel Pulse
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Science Webinar
Real-World Problem Solving: How Invention Education Drives Student Learning
Hear from student inventors and K-12 teachers about how invention education enhances learning, opens minds, and preps students for the future.
Content provided by The Lemelson Foundation

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts At the Supreme Court, High School Students Express Disappointment Over Abortion Decision
Students showed up to flex their civic muscles in the wake of the court ruling.
4 min read
From left, teenagers Sonia and Lilia Oulamine march outside the Supreme Court on June 24, 2022.
From left, Sonia and Lilia Oulamine march outside the Supreme Court on June 24, 2022.
Eesha Pendharkar/Education Week
Law & Courts Supreme Court Overturns 'Roe v. Wade’; States Can Ban Abortion
The decision, unthinkable just a few years ago, was the culmination of decades of efforts by abortion opponents.
7 min read
A celebration outside the Supreme Court, Friday, June 24, 2022, in Washington. The Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years — a decision by its conservative majority to overturn the court's landmark abortion cases. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
Law & Courts School Groups Worry as Supreme Court Recognizes Right to Carry Handguns in Public
In a 6-3 decision over a New York state law, the court says little about schools as 'sensitive places' where guns can be prohibited.
6 min read
Members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the court in 2021.
Members of the U.S. Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the court in 2021.
Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP
Law & Courts Supreme Court Strikes Down Maine's Exclusion of Religious Schools From Tuition-Aid Program
The justices hold that barring "sectarian" schools from the program for towns without public high schools violates the First Amendment.
7 min read
Image of the Supreme Court.
iStock/Getty