Willowbrook, IL, et al. v. Olech, Grace (02/23/2000)

By: Linda Chung, Medill News Service

Questions presented

Does the Constitution's equal protection clause give rise to a cause of action on behalf of a ""class of one"" when Olech did not allege membership in a vulnerable group, but alleged that ill will motivated the government to treat her differently than others similarly situated?

Brief

Grace Olech and her late-husband Thaddeus used to get their water from a well on their property in the village of Willowbrook, Ill. But in the spring of 1995, the well broke and was beyond repair.

The Olechs asked the village to connect their home to the municipal water system and the village agreed, provided that the Olechs pay for the cost of the hook up.

The Olechs complied and, by July 1995, the costs for the project were paid in full.

But a month later, the city told the Olechs that in addition to the payments for the project, the family would have to grant the village a 33-foot easement, a requirement that more than doubled the customary 15-foot easement. The village had hoped to use the added easement to install a paved roadway and public utilities.

The Olechs refused.

The project ceased.

In November 1995, the village relented to the smaller easement and proceeded with the water main extension.

Meanwhile, the Olechs were without running water for four months until the project was completed on March 19, 1996.

On April 13, 1998, Grace Olech, 72, brought suit in federal court against the village of Willowbrook, its president Gary Pretzer, and Philip J. Mordaff, the village director of public services.

Olech alleged that Willowbrook picked on her out of sheer vindictiveness by initially requiring her to grant the village a 33-foot easement while only requiring a 15-foot easement from other village residents. This, Olech claimed, violated her constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause.

The Equal Protection Clause provides a remedy when a ""powerful public official picked on a person out of sheer vindictiveness,"" she claimed.

Olech contended that she was singled out by Willowbrook was because she and her neighbors had filed state-court lawsuits against the village six years earlier in August of 1989. The lawsuits, Olech said, caused ""ill will"" on the part of the village, and the easement was retaliation against the families.

U.S. District Judge George M. Marovich dismissed the case, saying there wasnt sufficient evidence to prove that the public officials at Willowbrook ""harassed"" or ""picked on"" Olech ""out of sheer vindictiveness."" The court also found that the village needed the 33 feet of easement out of necessity, rather than ""malignant animosity"" or ""retaliation."" Installing a paved public roadway with sidewalks and public utilities required the additional 18-feet easement, the court found.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding Olechs allegations sufficient to move forward, because there could have been ill will on the part of the village, and thereby a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals declared: ""If the power of the government is brought to bear on a harmless individual merely because a powerful state or local official harbors a malignant animosity towards him, the individual ought to have a remedy in federal court.""

Writing for an unanimous panel in a brief opinion, Chief Judge Richard Posner said: ""The present case is not one of uneven enforcement. The Village does not deny that it has a legal obligation to provide water to all its residents. If it refuses to perform this obligation for one of the residents, for no reason other than a baseless hatred, then it denies that resident the equal protection of the laws. And that is sufficiently alleged.""

Posner conceded that the appeals panel was troubled, as was the district judge, ""by the prospect of turning every squabble over municipal services, of which there must be tens or even hundreds of thousands every year, into a federal constitutional case."" Nonetheless the panel concluded that Olech should have a chance to prove ""that the cause of the differential treatment...was a totally illegitimate animus toward the plaintiff by the defendant.""

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on Sept. 28, 1999 and limited review to the first question presented in Willowbrooks petition for certiorari.

On Nov. 12, 1999, the following assocations filed amicus briefs in support of the Village of Willowbrook: International City/County Management Assoc., National League of Cities, International Municipal Lawyers Assoc., National Governors Assoc., Council of State Governments, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Conference of States, and National Association of Counties. A month later, the U.S. Solicitor General was allowed to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae.

On Feb. 23, 2000, the Court issued a unanimous five-paragraph per curiam opinion, affirming the 7th Circuit's judgment.

The Court reinforced its holdings that ""successful equal protection claims (can be) brought by a 'class of one,'"" explaining again that ""[t]he purpose of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is to secure every person within the States jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination.""

In so holding, the Court did not reach the alternative theory of “subjective ill will” relied on by the 7th Circuit.