of New York, No. 08 Civ. 1034, 959 F.Supp.2d 540, 2013 WL 4046209 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2013), which also dealt with allegations of discrimination by the NYPD. In particular, Pinter does not allege that the NYPD responded to evidence of gay prostitution at video stores by directing its officers to target gay men near video stores for enforcement activity in general — stopping them while not stopping equally suspicious straight men, arresting them while not arresting straight men displaying identical behavior, and doing so regardless of whether the stop or arrest had anything to do with prostitution. If there had been evidence of this kind of selective enforcement, Pinter would have had a much stronger claim for intentional discrimination based on sexual orientation. Cf. id. at *7, *72-74 (<HOLDING>). There are any number of scenarios in which
holding that complaint failed to state an equal protection claim even without the additional hurdle of the heightened pleading standard the words equal protection do not appear anywhere in the complaint holding that in light of engquist the equal protection clause does not apply to a public employee asserting a violation of the clause based on a class of one theory of liability holding that the equal protection clause prevents the police from targeting a protected group for heightened levels of general enforcement activity based on the disproportionate representation of that group in local crime complaints holding that moral disapproval of homosexuals like a bare desire to harm the group is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the equal protection clause holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause