City’s Demand for Excessive Easement Unfair

Grace asked the city to connect her home to the public water supply. The city conditioned granting the water connection upon Grace giving the city a 33-foot easement. She objected, claiming the city only required a 15-foot easement from other nearby property owners.

After a three-month delay, the city agreed to a 15-foot easement. Grace then sued the city, claiming its original, unreasonable demand violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. She argued the city’s demand was motivated by her previous filing of an unrelated, successful lawsuit against the city.

Grace emphasized she is a “class of one” who is entitled to equal protection of the law, meaning equal treatment. The city stated it eventually agreed to Grace’s demands, so she is not entitled to any damages.

If you were the judge, would you rule Grace is entitled to damages for the city’s violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause because she was treated differently than her neighbors?

The judge said yes.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the judge said, is intended to protect individuals against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether by statute or by improper execution of laws by duly constituted government officials.

Grace stated a claim for relief, he said, based on unequal treatment compared to her neighbors. This case may involve “vindictive action” or “ill will” toward Grace, the judge said, but this ruling only gives rise to a cause of action for damages due to the city’s original, unreasonable demand for an excessive easement, the judge concluded.

Based on the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Village of Willowbrook vs. Olech.