This morning the U.S. Supreme Court struck a blow for public employers, ruling that the "class of one" theory does not apply in public employment cases. 

In Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, the plaintiff alleged that she was fired not because she was a member of a protected class (such as race, sex, age, disability, national origin, etc), but simply for "arbitrary, vindictive, and malicious reasons."  In other words, she was a "class of one" and her employer fired her because it simply didn’t like her, and she claimed that termination violated her constitutional due process rights.

While other Supreme Court decisions had upheld the "class of one" theory outside of the employment context, in this case the Court concluded that extending the class-of-one theory to public employees would lead to undue judicial interference in state employment practices and invalidate public at-will employment. 

For public employers, this is good news:  had the court upheld the "class of one" theory, it would have effectively provided for lifetime employment for public employees (of course, it seems like they have that already). 

For private employers, this case is purely academic and a reminder of how good you have it:  there has never been a "class of one" theory in the private workplace (no matter how much some employees seem to think there is).