OR · 42usc1983:deprivation.equal-protection
Requires purposeful discrimination / disparate treatment of similarly situated comparators (or facial classification) without the requisite level of scrutiny justification.
Exact element source
to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and lawsSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec1983; Unicode character offsets [306:402] (end exclusive); SHA-256 88fe01322b9d94860a669ec452f558146e2745845070bc43583671ce12acb2bb.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| sex-discrimination-public-employment/no-disparate-treatment-of-comparators | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/475/0645-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 — not | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/475/0645-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 — applied/merits |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/475/0645-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 | Deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection rights | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; count: computer-equipment denials; cohabitation warning; speeding suspension; training program; subject: count=computer-equipment denials; cohabitation warning; speeding suspension; training program Decided inside the qualified-immunity analysis: on plaintiff's own undisputed account male coworkers were treated the same, so no violation at all. | sex-discrimination-public-employment/no-disparate-treatment-of-comparators | However, the male detectives in the office did not have the Sheriffs Pack software either, nor were they provided with free internet access.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [4630:4770] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717.Johnson does not contest, however, that Sheriff Caudill warned the unmarried male officers under his charge that they too would face disciplinary action for similar conduct.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [5303:5476] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717.Johnson admits that she had exceeded the speed limit, and does not contest that three days’ suspension is the standard discipline for speeding, administered to males and females alike.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [5544:5728] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717.“the equal protection clause confers on a public employee a federal constitutional right to be free from gender discrimination.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [12518:12646] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717.Because Sheriff Caudill treated Johnson and her male coworkers similarly, he cannot be said in these instances to have violated Johnson’s constitutional right to be free from gender discrimination.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [14397:14594] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717. |
| /f3d/475/0645-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007 | Deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection rights | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits count: termination; lawsuit-threat statement; subject: count=termination; lawsuit-threat statement Court skips the merits and resolves these on the reasonableness / clearly-established prong. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
“the equal protection clause confers on a public employee a federal constitutional right to be free from gender discrimination.”
/f3d/475/0645-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2007
“the equal protection clause confers on a public employee a federal constitutional right to be free from gender discrimination.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_475.jsonl#/f3d/475/0645-01; Unicode character offsets [12518:12646] (end exclusive); SHA-256 30727309c1ebc11dd668c942b1108b6857a301484b72823436c570f211451717.Requires purposeful discrimination / disparate treatment of similarly situated comparators (or facial classification) without the requisite level of scrutiny justification.