63 F.4th 126
1st Cir.2023Background
- Back Beach, a public beach in Rockport, MA, has unusually accessible public parking and has become a popular spot for commercial scuba diving.
- Back Beach Neighbors Committee (an unincorporated association of nearby residents) alleges divers create noise, public nudity, trash, parking obstructions, safety hazards, and harassment of residents.
- The Committee alleges the Town has bylaws and beach regulations (e.g., against diving, public changing, commercial activity, parking rules) but fails to enforce them at Back Beach, treating it differently than other public beaches.
- The Committee sued the Town asserting a class-of-one equal protection claim (Count I) alleging disparate enforcement; the Town moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The district court dismissed Count I for failure to identify similarly situated comparators; the First Circuit affirmed, holding the complaint did not plausibly plead comparators or overcome the comparator requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint plausibly alleges a class-of-one equal protection claim by identifying similarly situated comparators | Back Beach was treated differently from other public beaches (failed enforcement); that differential treatment supports a class-of-one claim | Complaint names no similarly situated individuals/groups or other beaches sufficiently similar; therefore claim is implausible | Dismissal affirmed — plaintiff failed to plausibly identify similarly situated comparators |
| Whether Engquist relaxes the comparator requirement when alleging a deviation from clear governmental standards | Engquist allows a class-of-one claim based on unfair deviation from clear standards without naming comparators | Engquist did not eliminate the Olech comparator framework; it preserves the requirement and limits class-of-one in certain discretionary contexts | Court rejects plaintiff's reading of Engquist; comparator requirement remains; Engquist does not obviate the need for comparators |
| Whether unique features of Back Beach (e.g., parking/access) undermine comparator parity with other beaches | Town’s provision of parking allegedly encouraged diving and could itself be the basis for disparate-treatment claim | Complaint admits parking at Back Beach is "unlike" other beaches, which is a relevant distinction making other beaches not similarly situated | Court notes the complaint’s own allegations (unique parking/access) show relevant differences, undercutting comparator similarity |
| Whether the Committee (an unincorporated association) may maintain the class-of-one claim | Committee proceeded as plaintiff on behalf of members | Town argued lack of associational standing under Hunt | Court did not decide prudential associational-standing question; it resolved the case on the merits (failure to plead comparators) |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (recognizes class-of-one equal protection theory requiring intentional differential treatment and no rational basis)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (limits class-of-one in public employment and notes discretionary/state-action categories may be insulated)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim to relief)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- McCoy v. Town of Pittsfield, 59 F.4th 497 (1st Cir. 2023) (class-of-one plaintiffs must show an "extremely high degree of similarity" between comparators)
- Gianfrancesco v. Town of Wrentham, 712 F.3d 634 (1st Cir. 2013) (comparators must be similarly situated in all respects relevant to the challenged action)
- Cordi-Allen v. Conlon, 494 F.3d 245 (1st Cir. 2007) (requires close alignment between plaintiffs and comparators for class-of-one claims)