Civil Rights — equal protection — class-of-one

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Civil Rights — equal protection — class-of-one

Where the plaintiff received 24 indisputably bogus parking tickets, his equal protection claim should not have been dismissed.

“The district court here invoked the similarly-situated requirement and faulted Geinosky for failing to identify and describe any such individuals. But in this case, requiring Geinosky to name a similarly situated person who did not receive twenty-four bogus parking tickets in 2007 and 2008 would not help distinguish between ordinary wrongful acts and deliberately discriminatory denials of equal protection. Such a requirement would be so simple to satisfy here that there is no purpose in punishing its omission with dismissal. Here, the pattern and nature of defendants’ alleged conduct do the work of demonstrating the officers’ improper discriminatory purpose. Geinosky’s general allegation that defendants ‘intentionally treated plaintiff differently than others similarly situated’ is sufficient here, where the alleged facts so clearly suggest harassment by public officials that has no conceivable legitimate purpose. To require more would elevate form over substance. Geinosky’s complaint states a class-of-one claim in light of the pattern of unjustified harassment he has alleged.”

Affirmed in part, and Reversed in part.

11-1448 Geinosky v. City of Chicago

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Darrah, J., Hamilton, J.