David W. Garland, Member of the Firm, and Amy B. Messigian, Senior Attorney, in the Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practice, in the firm’s New York and Los Angeles offices, respectively, co-authored an article in Bender’s Labor & Employment Bulletin, titled “Policing Infidelity: The Circuit Split on Public Employer’s Right to Discipline for Off-Duty Conduct.”

Following is an excerpt (see below to download a full version in PDF format):

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Supreme Court has described two strands of the substantive due process doctrine. One strand protects an individual’s fundamental liberty interests, while the other protects against the exercise of governmental power that shocks the conscience. A fundamental right or liberty interest is one that is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” The government may only infringe fundamental liberty interests if the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Conduct that shocks the conscience, on the other hand, is deliberate government action that is “arbitrary” and “unrestrained by the established principles of private right and distributive justice.” This strand of substantive due process is concerned with preventing government officials from “abusing their power or employing it as an instrument of oppression.”

In 2003, the United States Supreme Court found Texas’ consensual anti-sodomy law unconstitutional in the watershed decision of Lawrence v. Texas. The Court opined that intimate consensual sexual conduct was protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

While it may be argued that Lawrence pronounced a fundamental right to sexual privacy, many courts have refused to interpret Lawrence so broadly, finding instead that Lawrence merely invalidated an arbitrary and oppressive anti-sodomy law. This conflict has caused a circuit court split between the Ninth, Fifth and Tenth Circuits in the context of whether a public employer may discipline an employee over his or her off-duty sexual behavior or whether such conduct is off limits unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. While the Tenth and Fifth Circuits have upheld the discipline of law enforcement officers whose off-duty sexual conduct violated their agencies’ codes of conduct, on February 9, 2018, the Ninth Circuit ruled that off-duty sexual conduct is protected by the Constitution in Perez v. City of Roseville and is therefore off limits from disciplinary action in the absence of a compelling state interest.

The conflict between the circuits is understandable considering the differing views on the meaning of Lawrence. Moreover, the conflict is unlikely to be resolved unless and until the Supreme Court clarifies whether a fundamental right to sexual privacy exists, such that the lower courts know whether to apply strict scrutiny or the more deferential rational basis test to laws or practices that infringe on an individual’s sexual privacy.

Resources

Jump to Page

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.