context: "Successful claims have arisen from unfavorable zoning decisions, withholding of permits, and selective regulatory enforcement." The Supreme Court has held, however, that "the class-of-one theory of equal protection has no application in the public employment context."
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 542 F.3d 802, 821
citation_a.parenthetical:  "[T]he class-of-one theory is not legally cognizable where ... a public employee claims that she has been treated differently than other employees."
citation_a.sentence: See Kelley v. City of Albuquerque, 542 F.3d 802, 821 (10th Cir.2008) ( “[T]he class-of-one theory is not legally cognizable where ... a public employee claims that she has been treated differently than other employees.”); Duprey v. Twelfth Judicial Dist. Court, No. CIV 08-0756 JB, 2009 WL 2105955, at *5 (D.N.M. June 22, 2009) (Browning, J.)(“In this case, Duprey, who is a public employee, is alleging that she was denied a promotion and was demoted.
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.parenthetical: reasoning that "an allegation of arbitrary differential treatment could be made in nearly every instance" of a personnel decision by the government, and "government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter"
citation_b.sentence: Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591, 607-08, 128 S.Ct. 2146, 170 L.Ed.2d 975 (2008) (reasoning that “an allegation of arbitrary differential treatment could be made in nearly every instance” of a personnel decision by the government, and “government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter”).