City Employment Residency Requirement OK'd by Sixth Circuit

Ross Runkel's Employment Law Memo has the details of a case challenging on constitutional grounds a public employer's residency requirement:

Municipal employees sued their employer, asserting (among other things) claims that the employer's residency requirement violated their federal constitutional rights to equal protection and travel and was unconstitutionally vague. The trial court dismissed for "failure to state a claim" under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The 6th Circuit affirmed, concluding that 1) the United States Supreme Court has rejected the contention that a municipal employee has "a constitutional right to be employed by the city ... while he is living elsewhere." (citing McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Serv. Comm'n, 424 US 645 (1976)); 2) the residency requirement didn't violate the equal protection clause - either "facially" or "as applied;" and 3) the residency requirement was not void for vagueness.

No surprises here, but just good black letter public employment law to remember. The case is Association of Cleveland Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 06-3823 (6th Cir. Sept. 25, 2007).

PS