Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin June 10, 2015 I Volume 9 1 Issue 11 <br />Equal Protection—Property <br />owners allege city denial of their <br />proposed condominium project <br />violates their equal protection <br />rights <br />Property owners claim different treatment by city <br />due to discriminatory animus <br />Citation: Miller v. City of Monona, 2015 WL 1947886 (7th Cir. 2015) <br />The Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and <br />Wisconsin. <br />SEVENTH CIRCUIT (WISCONSIN) (05/01/15)—This case ad- <br />dressed the boundaries of the class -of -one doctrine under the Equal <br />Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States <br />Constitution. More specifically, it addressed the issue of whether prop- <br />erty owners could prevail in their class -of -one equal protection claim <br />based on denial of approval to build. <br />The Background/Facts: Stephanie Miller and her husband James <br />Stellhorn, along with their co -owned company, Harlan LLC (hereinaf- <br />ter, for the sake of simplicity, "Miller"), owned property in the City of <br />Monona, Wisconsin (the "City"). In 2004, Miller applied to the City for <br />permission to build a 10 -unit condominium project. The approval pro- <br />cess dragged on and was snagged when it was discovered that Miller's <br />property, on which there were vacant and dilapidated structures, <br />contained asbestos. Following improper and then professional asbestos <br />removal, Miller faced additional enforcement actions while awaiting <br />approval. For example, Miller was: cited for building code violations re- <br />lated to the razing of the structures on her property; was order to erect a <br />fence and later ordered to remove the fence; and was denied approval <br />for construction of her project until outstanding fines were paid. <br />Eventually, Miller filed a lawsuit alleging that the City and various <br />City officials (collectively, hereinafter, the "City") in denying the <br />proposed condominium project had discriminatory animus toward her <br />and intentionally treated her differently than others similarly situated <br />without a rational basis and in violation of the Equal Protection Clause <br />of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. <br />The Equal Protection Clause provides that no state shall deny to any <br />person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws." As a <br />comparator (i.e., a similarly situated person who was treated differently), <br />© 2015 Thomson Reuters 5 <br />