Secsys, LLC v. Vigil
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1240
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Extortion scheme: Vigil, NM state treasurer, and deputy Gallegos allegedly sought to steer a state contract to bidders who would hire Sais (Vigil’s ally) as a payoff to influence an election.
- SECSYS offered to pay Sais about 40% of net, but not full demand; negotiations failed, another bidder paid full demand to avoid Sais.
- Vigil was indicted and convicted in United States v. Vigil, 523 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008).
- SECSYS sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of equal protection, not under state contracting law or federal statutes.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants on the equal protection claim; SECSYS appeals.
- Court affirms district court’s grant of summary judgment against SECSYS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extortion claim can state an equal protection violation | SECSYS claims extortion-based discrimination violated EP through withholding a contract due to noncompliance. | Vigil and Gallegos acted without discriminatory intent against SECSYS; policy was general applicability, not class-based. | No; traditional EP analysis shows no intentional discrimination. |
| Whether the case fits the class-of-one EP doctrine | SECSYS relies on class-of-one to show arbitrary treatment. | Extortion scheme applied to all bidders; no single-out resourced individual. | No; class-of-one requires intentional differential treatment of a specific person; not shown here. |
| Whether requiring discriminatory intent is satisfied in generally applicable extortion context | Disparate impact from extortion constitutes EP violation even without class-based discrimination. | Discrimination must be intentional; extortion harms are collateral, not purposeful against a class. | Intent to discriminate not shown; EP claim fails. |
| Whether Engquist affects applicability to government contracting | Engquist may not bar class-of-one in contracting. | Engquist may limit class-of-one in public employment but not necessarily contracting. | Immaterial to outcome; SECSYS’s claim fails on traditional EP grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. 426 U.S. 229, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) (discriminatory intent requiring more than disparate impact)
- Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979) (intent required for discrimination even with general impact)
- Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) (selective enforcement can show discriminatory purpose)
- Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (class-of-one requires intentional different treatment and lack of rational basis)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (class-of-one not limited to government employment context)
- Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944) (equal protection not satisfied without intentional discrimination)
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (two-step EP analysis for class-of-one claims)