How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask socrateaser Your Own Question
socrateaser, Lawyer
Category: California Employment Law
Satisfied Customers: 37828
Experience:  Retired (mostly)
Type Your California Employment Law Question Here...
socrateaser is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Need Case Law on Selective Enforcement in Employment Termi

This answer was rated:

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?

Customer: replied 3 years ago.

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.

Couldn't find anything about 'selective enforcement' in employment termination context on FindLaw. (Only selective enforcement of laws that violate equal protection when applied in a discriminatory way). Searching on Lexis or Westlaw are obviously cost prohibitive.

Good luck, but I'm going to have to opt out.

Different contributor here. I have comprehensive access to Westlaw for every U.S. jurisdiction. I've run a search based on the keywords "selective enforcement" and "employee", and I come up with 473 cases. Naturally, most are probably irrelevant to your need.

I can't just dump the results into a webpage for you -- that would be a copyright violation. I can extract the first 10 cases that appear, if you like and provide a one sentence summary for each.

Will this be acceptable?

Customer: replied 3 years ago.

Yes. That would be acceptable. I am looking for "selective enforcement" in the employment context.

Okay, this could take about 20 minutes. I'm not just cutting and pasting here. Thanks for your patience.

Customer: replied 3 years ago.

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.


The 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).

socrateaser, Lawyer
Satisfied Customers: 37828
Experience: Retired (mostly)
socrateaser and 2 other California Employment Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

This response was EXCELLENT!!! What an OUTSTANDING job of research...You need to rename your research to LIGHTNING QUICK! Thank you SOOOOOO Much

Thanks. Flattered -- seriously.

Good luck with your case.

Related California Employment Law Questions