Dist.Ct. did not err in dismissing for failure to state viable cause of action plaintiff-police officer’s section 1983 action, alleging that defendants-employer and certain police officials violated his due process and equal protection rights by allowing defendants’ “wives and paramours” to cheat on 2015 police lieutenants’ examination so as to deprive plaintiff of promotion to lieutenant. Plaintiff lacked protected property interest in “fair” lieutenants’ examination free from cheating or rigging, since while plaintiff had protected interest in retaining his current position, he had no such interest in unattained higher rank. Also, plaintiff failed to state viable equal protection claim, since, under Engquist, 553 U.S. 591, instant class-of-one equal protection claim is barred in public employment context. Moreover, plaintiff could not establish any protected gender claim, since, although plaintiff asserted that he was discriminated against because he was not in romantic relationship with defendants-executives who allegedly allowed others to gain access to test, any favoritism would not be based on plaintiff’s gender, since disadvantaged competitors could be either male or female who had not engaged in romantic relationship with defendants.
