Enguist

Plaintiff Anup Engquist (“Engquist”) brought suit alleging violations of federal anti-discrimination law, constitutional law, and state tort law against her former employer, the Oregon Department of Agriculture (“ODA”) and John Szczepanski (“Szczepanski”) and Joseph Hyatt (“Hyatt”). A jury found the individual defendants liable for constitutional violations of equal protection and substantive due process, and for intentional interference with contract. The jury awarded Engquist $175,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages. Pursuant to Oregon law, $75,000 of the punitive damages were allocated to Oregon’s Criminal Injuries Compensation Account (“State Account”). Szczepanski and Hyatt (collectively “Defendants”) appeal, contending that the constitutional claims are invalid as a matter of law. Engquist cross-appeals, contending that a jury verdict from a co-worker’s similar trial in state court should have been given preclu-sive effect, or that it should have been admitted into evidence. She also challenges the allocation of $75,000 of the punitive damages awarded to her to the State Account. We have jurisdiction over the appeal and cross-appeal under 28 U.S.C. §…

dissenting:

I dissent. Unlike the majority, I agree with the other circuits that the class-of-one theory of equal protection is applicable to public employment decisions. Accordingly, I would uphold the jury’s verdict on the equal protection claim, including its award of $175,000 in compensatory damages and $125,000 in punitive damages. I concur in the majority’s holding as to the takings *1011 clause issue, although for somewhat different reasons. Thus, I would also affirm the district court’s award to Engquist of an additional $50,000, consisting of forty percent of the total $125,000 punitive damages awarded in connection with the state law claim. Because I would uphold the jury verdict in its entirety, I would not remand the case to the district court.

The majority’s holding relating to the class-of-one theory of equal protection creates inter-circuit conflict, is at odds with the precedent of the Supreme Court and of this circuit, and is not justified by the policy concerns raised by the majority. Every other circuit to have considered this question has applied the class-of-one theory to employment. See, e.g., Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225, 239 (3d Cir.2006);…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANUP ENGQUIST, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 05-35170 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF  D.C. No.

AGRICULTURE; JOSEPH (JEFF) HYATT; CV 02-1637 AS

JOHN SZCZEPANSKI,

Defendants-Appellants. 

ANUP ENGQUIST, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 05-35263 v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF  D.C. No.

CV 02-1637 AS

AGRICULTURE; JOSEPH (JEFF) HYATT;

OPINION

JOHN SZCZEPANSKI,

Defendants-Appellees.  Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Donald C. Ashmanskas, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 27, 2006—Portland, Oregon

Filed February 8, 2007

Before: Stephen Reinhardt, A. Wallace Tashima, and Susan P. Graber, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Tashima; Dissent of Judge Reinhardt

1501 1506 ENGQUIST v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

COUNSEL

Loren W. Collins, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Julie A. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Oregon Depart- ment of Justice, Salem, Oregon, for defendants-appellants and cross-appellees.

Stephen L.…