California Employment Law
Have California Employment Law Questions? Ask a Lawyer.
Need Case Law on Connecticut and Supreme Court or Second Circuit Selective Enforcement in Employment Termination
Hello and welcome to JustAnswer.
I'm very sorry to hear about your situation and hope I can help.
My goal is to provide you with excellent service today.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'selective enforcement in employment termination' as this is not legal terminology. (I.e., you cannot sue for 'selective enforcement in employment termination').
Hope you don't mind answering a few questions so I can provide you with a complete and thorough answer.
Can you tell me about the employment termination in question?
Are you trying to see if you can appeal your employer's decision because you were terminated for a reason that another employee was not terminated for?
Were you the person an at-will employee or did he or she have an employment contract or a member of a union?
I am an attorney. I need research on the term "selective enforcement" as relates to employment law. Every one of the other individuals got a suspension for violating policy, and my client was terminated. We believe that her case was selectively enforced, in that certain individuals not of her class basis, received less or no discipline, where she received a termination from employment. I need case law cited to support my theories in a brief. It is a form of discrimination, and a term "selective enforcement" where some people can get away with certain acts, while others may not get away with it. I need this TODAY, as my brief is due today...Thank you.
Yes. That would be acceptable. I am looking for "selective enforcement" in the employment context.
Looking for your response! Thank you so much! Be sure I have a way to contact you again...I have another case to work on this week. Attorney Jennings
Gentile v. Nulty, 769 F. Supp. 2d 573, 578 (USDC SD NY 2/25/2011) ("Under a similar theory of selective enforcement, a plaintiff may prevail on an equal protection claim by showing (1) that he was treated differently from others similarly situated, and (2) 'that such differential treatment was based on impermissible considerations such as race, religion, intent to inhibit or punish the exercise of constitutional rights, or malicious or bad faith intent to injure a person.' Cine SK8, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta, 507 F.3d 778, 790 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).")Heusser v. Hale, 777 F. Supp. 2d 366, 385(USDC Conn. 4/15/2011) ("It is well settled that, [t]o establish a violation of the Equal Protection Clause based on selective enforcement, a plaintiff must ordinarily show the following: (1) [that] the person, compared with others similarly situated, was selectively treated; and (2) that such selective treatment was based on impermissible considerations such as race, religion, intent to inhibit or punish the exercise of constitutional rights, or malicious or bad faith intent to injure a person." Emmerling v. Town of Richmond, 09-CV-6418 (CJS), 2010 WL(NNN) NNN-NNNN at *12, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130948, at *35 (W.D.N.Y. July 23, 2010) (quoting Freedom Holdings, Inc. v. Spitzer, 357 F.3d 205, 234 (2d Cir.2004)). Thus, in order to state a valid claim for 'selective enforcement,' Plaintiffs must allege that they were treated differently than others similarly situated and that such selective treatment was based on impermissible considerations."Payne v. Huntington Union Free School Dist., 219 F. Supp. 2d 273, 277 (USDC ED NY 7/26/2002) ("The seminal selective enforcement case in the Second Circuit is LaTrieste Restaurant & Cabaret, Inc. v. Village of Port Chester, 40 F.3d 587 (2d Cir.1994). To prevail in a selective enforcement claim, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that she was selectively treated in comparison with others similarly situated; and (2) the selective treatment was based on impermissible considerations such as race, religion, intent to inhibit or punish the exercise of constitutional rights, or malicious or bad faith intent to injure a person. Id. at 590.¶The Supreme Court, however, has cast doubt on the validity of the second prong of LaTrieste, insofar as it requires that the selective enforcement be motivated by either an impermissible motive or a malicious intent to injure the person. In Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 120 S.Ct. 1073, 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000) (per curiam), the Supreme Court held that a complaint which alleged that the complained-of enforcement was 'irrational and wholly arbitrary' was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, irrespective of whether the complaint had pled that the motivation was due to 'ill will' or the like. Id. at 565, 120 S.Ct. 1073.END SEARCHThe above shows six cases, all of which seem to be relatively closes intertwined with the same basic principles. As I read through the other case summaries, everything seems similar -- which to me means that if you can't find something useful in the above-cited case law, then you'll probably need a different legal theory to bring a claim. Hope this helps.
Note: to reach me again, put my userid at the beginning of your question ("To socrateaser).
This response was EXCELLENT!!! What an OUTSTANDING job of research...You need to rename your research to LIGHTNING QUICK! Thank you SOOOOOO Much
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).