Grace Olech and her late husband asked the Village of Willowbrook to connect their property to the municipal water supply. The Village initially required them to grant a 33-foot easement, while Olech alleged that other similarly situated property owners were required to provide only a 15-foot easement. After a 3-month delay, the Village agreed to connect the property in exchange for only a 15-foot easement. Olech sued, alleging that the larger easement demand was irrational and wholly arbitrary.
Issue
Whether the Equal Protection Clause gives rise to a cause of action for a class of one when the plaintiff does not allege membership in any class or group. More specifically, whether a plaintiff states an equal protection claim by alleging intentional differential treatment from similarly situated persons with no rational basis for the difference.
Rule
A plaintiff may bring a class-of-one equal protection claim by alleging that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. Allegations of intentional and arbitrary discrimination are sufficient under traditional equal protection analysis.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Akron, Ohio, Nina Patel applied to have her warehouse connected to the city's sewer main. The city told her it would approve the connection only if she paved a 60-foot service lane, even though, according to her complaint, other warehouse owners on the same block were required to pave only 20 feet; after several weeks, the city approved Nina's connection with just a 20-foot paving commitment.
If Nina sues under the Equal Protection Clause, which argument best supports denial of a motion to dismiss?
Explanation. The governing rule is that a plaintiff may state a class-of-one equal protection claim by alleging that she was intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there was no rational basis for the difference. The majority held those allegations are sufficient even without alleging membership in a broader group. The later approval on ordinary terms does not defeat pleading where the complaint alleges intentional, arbitrary differential treatment.