Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/2010

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 70, 2010 ~ Volume 4 ~ No. 5 ((:'~ certain building and safety requirements. The Ordinance also limited where and when junk dealers could operate. Also, the Ordinance re- quired that any junk dealer who stored two or more junked vehicles out- doors for more than 30 days construct "an opaque fence shielding the vehicles from public view." In 2006, Reget filed this lawsuit against the city. Among other things; the lawsuit alleged that the city violated his equal protection rights (un- der the United States Constitution) because it "selectively enforced its ordinances against him." More specifically, Reget claimed that the city "intentionally targeted him" and "singled him out" for enforcement of its junk-dealer Ordinance by: (1) citing him three times between 1991 and 1994 for violating the Ordinance; and. (2) "requiring".him to fence his property in exchange for settlement of a zoning dispute. The city asked the district court to find there were no material is- sues of fact in dispute and to issue summary judgment in its favor on the law alone. The district court issued summary judgment to the city. In doing so, the district court held that "Reget had failed to submit evidence show- ing that similarly situated junk dealers received more favorable treatment from the City." Reget appealed. !~~ The Court's Decision: Judgment of districf court affirmed. The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, held that the city's enforcement of the junk-dealer Ordinance against Reget did not violate Reget's equal protection rights. The court explained that Reget's claim was a "class-of-one equal pro- tection claim." Under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amend- ment of the United States Constitution, the city could not: take action that discriminated against Reget on the basis of membership in a pro- tected class; or irrationally target Reget (as an individual) for discrimina- tory treatment.as a so-called "class of one." In order to succeed with his class-of-one equal protection claim, Reget had to establish that: (1) the city intentionally treated him differently than others similazly situated; and (2) there was no rational basis for the difference in treatment. The court found that Reget failed to establish the first of those ele- ments. Reget failed to show that a similarly situated auto-salvage busi- ness was treated more favorably. Reget had "identified several other auto-repair shops" in the city that he claimed were not cited fox violat- ing the junk-dealer Ordinance. However, he "did not establish that these businesses had actually violated the [O]rdinance." He did not show that "any of the comparable businesses engaged in the outdoor storage of / two or more junked vehicles for more than 30 days and failed to comply 1 ~ with the fence requirement in the junk-storage [O]rdinance." Nor did he show that "the comparator junk dealers violated the [O]rdinance in some other way yet were not cited." © 2010 Thomson Reuters 29