Preferences = Inequality!

(1) Alabama thru Delaware: City Contractors suffer reverse discrimination due to racial set-asides and racial quotas!

Racial discrimination is NEVER justified!

Site Index / Menu.

(1) Alabama thru Delaware
City-Local Contractors, Employees, and
Racial Set-Asides

Last Updated
March 25, 2001
See Especially:  Sacramento Utility Sued for Violating Prop. 209 (06/22/00)

BACK:  City Set-Asides MAIN Index.
By State and City:

California (Mountain View) Ruling backs "voluntary" data on race (04/10/99) (no link)
          "A post-Proposition 209 lawsuit, challenging a state law that lets local agencies ask job applicants to provide voluntary information about their race, was brushed off Friday by a state appeals court.

          "The 1st District Court of Appeal said the law did not authorize or condone different treatment for different racial or ethnic groups. The justices noted that the law expressly prohibited use of the information for discrimination or preference and required the data to be kept in a nonpublic file, accessible only to researchers.

          "But John Haggerty, the Santa Clara attorney who filed the suit on his own behalf, said past cases may no longer be valid because of the voters' approval in 1996 of Prop. 209, which banned consideration of race or sex in government employment, contracting and education.

          "He said he asked the justices during oral arguments Monday to issue a published opinion on "an important question: To what extent, if any, may our government ask us what our race is?"  Haggerty, who is white, said he filled out the racial questionnaire attached to his job application in November 1996 but did not get an interview for the job vacancy, which had more than 160 applicants.

          "The application stated that the racial information was mandatory, but the city changed it to voluntary when Haggerty complained. His suit nevertheless claimed that the 1974 state law, which authorizes local agencies to collect voluntary racial data, was racially discriminatory."   (Associated Press via HotCoco.Com 04/10/99 by Bob Egelko)
[former link *]

California (Sacramento):  Sacramento Municipal Utility District Sued for Violating Prop. 209 (06/22/00)
          Adversity.Net Special Report:  The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) continues to violate California's Proposition 209 by continuing to give racial and gender preferences in the award of contracts.  On June 22, 2000 the Pacific Legal Foundation sued SMUD, asking the judge to direct the utility to abandon its discriminatory racial and gender preferences which are in violation of state law banning such preferences. 

          The Pacific Legal Foundation has sued SMUD on behalf of two well-qualified contractors whose owners happen to be the "wrong" color -- United Utilities, Inc., and C & C Construction, Inc., both of whom have been told by SMUD they are the wrong color.  (Adversity.Net Special Report, 06/22/00)
[link ]

California (Sacramento):   SF Utilities Continue Racial and Gender Quotas (10/02/98) (dead link)
          If you are a woman-owned contractor, or if you are a "non-white" contractor, you get a 5% "bonus racial preference" from the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)!  The SMUD board decided, apparently without the benefit of competent legal counsel, that this racial set aside is legal in spite of Prop 209 which prohibits this kind of racism.  Expect to be seeing this municipal board in Court in the near future!  (Sacramento Bee 10/2/98)
[former link

California (San Francisco):  S.F. Airport's Employment Rules Violate Proposition 209  (09/07/99)
          "San Francisco Airport's "Diversity Staffing Plan," which governs the recruitment, hiring, retention, and promotion of airport employees, is unconstitutional, according to a lawsuit filed by the Sacramento-based Pacific Legal Foundation.

          "Representing three airport employees who were bumped from an "eligible pool" of applicants for a promotion, PLF is asking a federal District Court to declare the airport's Diversity Staffing Plan void and unenforceable under the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause and California's Proposition 209.

          "Poposition 209 prohibits state and local governments from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment, to anyone based on race, ethnicity, or gender in the operation of public employment, education, and contracting.

          "PLF also is asking the federal court to enter an injunction against the San Francisco Airport Commission and its Director, John Martin, prohibiting them from further implementing the plan or any other employment practice that awards promotional preferences on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender. A key issue in the lawsuit (Cheresnik v. City and County of San Francisco) is whether government employers may grant such preferences to minorities and women solely for the purpose of increasing racial and gender "diversity" in the workplace.

          "'By placing a premium on diversity as opposed to individual merit, San Francisco is depriving its citizens and the traveling public of the benefit of the most qualified candidates for available jobs," said PLF attorney Eric Grant who is representing three qualified airfield safety officers passed over for promotions to a supervisory position because of their race and gender. (A copy of PLF's complaint may be found at PLF's web site,   (Excite.Com 09/07/99)
[link ]

Related / Similar:

Pacific Legal Foundation Sues S.F. Airport over Racial Quotas (09/08/99) (Pay Site)
          "In its latest assault on race- or gender-based public policies, the Pacific Legal Foundation on Tuesday sued San Francisco International Airport for allegedly violating Proposition 209 and the U.S. Constitution's equal protection guarantees.

          "'By placing a premium on diversity as opposed to individual merit, San Francisco is depriving its citizens and the traveling public of the benefit of the most qualified candidates for available jobs,' Eric Grant, attorney for the Sacramento-based group, said in a prepared statement."   (California Law, PAY SITE, 09/08/99)
[link ]

California (San Francisco):  $215 million awarded to businesses of the "right" color (08/03/99)
          "San Francisco has surpassed its goals in hiring minority and women contractors to work on the new $2.4 billion San Francisco International Airport expansion project, according to a report to be released today.

          "In the year ended June 30 [1999], the airport commission said $215 million in contracts were awarded to minority- and female- owned businesses. For the entire project, which is California's largest public works venture, these enterprises received approximately $650 million in contracts, or 27 percent of the total.

          "The largest minority contract, more than $23 million, was awarded to the San Francisco African American firm Scott-Norman for plumbing, heating and other mechanical work. Marinship Construction, another African American company, won the $10 million contract to build the fire station. And Kwan Henmi Architects, whose principal is an Asian American woman, received the contract to design three ``Airtrain'' stations to transport travelers between terminals."  (San Francisco Chronicle 08/03/99 page C1 by Peter Sinton)
[link ]

California (San Francisco):  FBI Probes Set-Aside and Quota Corruption (08/02/99)
          SPECIAL SECTION:  On Friday, July 30, 1999, the FBI seized the records of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission in the course of an investigation into cronyism and corruption in the city's racial quota contracting program.   High prices and political favoritism characterize the San Francisco Human Rights Commission's quota and set-aside programs.
[San Francisco / FBI Quota Probe Link: ]

California (San Francisco):  Schindler Elevator Too White for San Francisco!  (04/06/99 - dead link)
First District Court of Appeal panel on Monday appeared to hit the "emergency stop" button on an elevator company's challenge to San Francisco's minority set-aside program for contractors.

          "The case is one of two where San Francisco faces challenges from critics who say city leaders have ignored Proposition 209, the voter initiative that gutted affirmative action programs in California.

          "Schindler Elevator Corp., a Swiss concern with offices in San Leandro, lost out on a $12 million bid in 1997 to build escalators at the expansion of the San Francisco airport.

          "Airport officials said Schindler lost the bid because it didn't properly fill out paperwork related to the minority set-aside program. But in Schindler Elevator Corp. v. City and County of San Francisco, A081811, the company claims the minority set-aside program is illegal under Prop 209.

          "Again and again on Monday, Schindler's attorney, Richard McDonald, tried to take the express [elevator] up to his key argument -- that the minority set-aside program is unconstitutional under Prop 209.

          "But First District Justices Gary Strankman, Douglas Swager and especially James Marchiano kept stopping the Thelen Reid & Priest partner at the lower floors, pointing out procedural problems with his challenge.  Even worse for the company, the three justices showed no appetite for dismantling the [San Francisco racial quota] contracting program.

          "You can't envision some situation where a minority outreach program would be constitutional under Prop 209?" asked Marchiano, the most active questioner of the day.

          "The justices' questioning focused on two issues: Whether the Prop 209 challenge was properly before them and the alleged problems with the contract.

          "Although the company has now made the Prop 209 issue the centerpiece of its appeal, Schindler only mentioned Prop 209 in passing in the trial court, instead focusing the company's arguments on its attempts to comply with the law and the airport's abuse of discretion in denying Schindler the contract without a fair hearing."  (CalLaw 04/06/99 by Rinat Fried)
[former link **] 

Related:  White Schindler Rejected; Prop 209 Ignored! (posted 05/05/99)
          "The First District Court of Appeals rejected an elevator company's Proposition 209 challenge to San Francisco's minority contracting law.

          "Schindler Elevator Corp. had contended it lost out on a $12 million bid to build escalators as part of the expansion of San Francisco's airport because it didn't comply with unconstitutional minority hiring goals. But in an unpublished decision, the court said Schindler lost out on the bid because the company failed to follow instructions on the bid forms, offering no answers to questions about its minority subcontracting efforts." 

          In other words, because Schindler Elevator refused to supply racist, quota-oriented data in its bid, it was denied the opportunity to contract with the government.  (Based on Cal Law, no link available, posted 05/05/99)

California (San Francisco):  City Denies Business to White, Male-Owned Firm!           Adversity.Net (Horror Stories, Case 13, this site):  (Jan. 20, 1999) - Tom Taber works for Ford Graphics, which is owned by a "white male".  The City of San Francisco told Mr. Taber in July 1998 that he, and his firm, were the wrong color to bid on city contracts.  The Pacific Legal Foundation has mounted a lawsuit against San Francisco for their violation of Proposition 209 which makes it illegal for city or state entities to award contracts based on race or sex!   (Adversity.Net Horror Story, 01/20/99)
[link ]

California (San Francisco):  SF Defies Prop 209!  Women, Minorities, Arabs to Get Preferences
          When it comes to saying "no" to the voters, San Francisco must be taking lessons from Bill Clinton.   Defying (again) the law (Prop. 209), SF's Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to extent the city's racial contracting quotas until the year 2003!  Oh, and they've made it "friendlier" by including Native Americans and Arabs in this illegal "law".  (San Francisco Chronicle 9/23/98)
[link ]

California (San Francisco):  Defiant City Vows to Ignore Prop. 209; Enforces Racial Quotas
          San Francisco wants to give Arab Americans and Native Americans "racial preference" in city contracts.  The Arabs and the Native Americans will join the racially-preferred ranks of blacks, Asians, Latinos, and women.  (San Francisco Examiner 08/25/98 by Rachel Gordon)
[link ]

California (Contra Costa County):  County Supervisors Consider "More Constitutional" Racial Quotas (no link)
          County is assailed by anti-Civil Rights Groups (such as NAACP, ACLU, and others) for considering a city contracting policy that is "less reverse racist" than their Pre-Prop. 209 policies.  The County seems to be confused:  California Voters have clearly declared racial quotas illegal, but the unconstitutional federal guidelines which dictate reverse-discrimination may take precedence!  What's a County Council to do?  (Contra Costa Times, 8/10/98)  (link no longer available)

Colorado (Denver): Racial Quota Contracts Ruled Illegal! (03/07/01)

[Adversity.Net Special Report -- Case 27] Concrete Works v. Denver -- white-owned contractor prevails against quotas after 9 years of expensive litigation.  Judge rules that Denver's contracting quotas are illegal.

[Local link:]
See also additional stories, below.

Colorado (Denver):  Minorities optimistic on road contracts (06/12/00)
          (DENVER) "Alliance seeks equity on highway projects ... An alliance that threatened lawsuits and civil disobedience if minority contractors don't get more state highway business is closer to a truce with Gov. Bill Owens' administration. Owens has been under attack by the alliance of minority groups because he refused to meet with them.

          "But administration officials say alliance members have taken "cheap shots" at the governor and made threats. The Revs. Willie Simmons and James Peters of the Greater Metro Denver Ministerial Alliance met last month with Colorado Department of Transportation Executive Director Thomas Norton and CDOT Commissioner Joe Blake.

          "The participants agreed that the state would update a disparity study and evaluate various "race-neutral" ways that CDOT can reach out to contractors, especially smaller ones. ... The group formed by the ministers includes the Colorado Progress Coalition, ACORN, Jobs for Justice, the Million Man March, 9 to 5 and the El Paso County Ministerial Fellowship."   (Denver Rocky Mountain News, 06/12/00, by Bob Jackson)
[link ]

Colorado (Denver):   White Contractor Sues for Reverse Discrimination (02/08/99)
                                Anti-Quota Landmark Decision in the Making
          "A battalion of Denver city lawyers, high-priced consultants and expert witnesses has been gearing up to defend city government in a costly reverse-discrimination court battle that starts trial today in federal court. The case challenges Denver's 16-year program promoting jobs for women- and minority- contractors.

          "The plaintiffs, Brighton-based Concrete Works of Colorado, Inc., sued the city in 1992 over an ordinance calling for general contractors hired by the city to make "good faith" efforts to complete at least 16 percent of their subcontracting work using minority-owned businesses, and at least 12 percent using women-owned firms. City officials say those standards - which were lowered to 10 percent in both categories late last year - are flexible goals, not quotas, intended to remedy perceived race and gender bias in construction.

          " 'All contractors are not able to compete on an equal footing,'  said Scott Detamore, the lawyer representing Concrete Works.  'People ought to care whether their city is engaging in unconstitutional actions, preferring certain racial and ethnic minorities over other persons.'  The company is asking the courts to rule the city's policy unconstitutional, and to award it damages."  [See Also Denver Witch Hunt, below.]

          Lawyer Scott Detamore works for the Mountain States Legal Foundation which is representing Concrete Works in the lawsuit.   According to the Denver Post, Detamore also said  " 'The question is whether the city is entitled to engage in a race-conscious program without proving that there's even race discrimination to begin with,'  he said, noting that Miami, Philadelphia, Houston, Los Angeles and Columbus, Ohio, have lost their attempts to defend their affirmative-action contracting programs.  Detamore has said Denver obsessively is trying to unearth evidence of discrimination against women and minorities to justify its affirmative-action stance."  (Denver Post, 02/08/99, by Susan Greene)
[link ]

Colorado (Denver):  Denver Witch Hunt for Discrimination by White Contractors!
          Denver is NOT a friendly place to do business if you are unfortunate enough to be a white-owned contracting business.   In the latest example of intrusive government regulation, the city has passed legislation that requires you to open up your private, financial records to the city's biased auditors who can then comb through your books to try to prove you have not hired enough minorities!  This is a case of presumed guilty until proven innocent, and it is indicative of the unconstitutional extremes to which racial quota supporters will go.   (Denver Post 12-10-98) [See Also:  Reverse Discrimination Lawsuit, above.]
[link ]

Related Story:  Anti-white Denver Council Approves White Witch Hunt (dead link)
          "Denver's affirmative action law was beefed up Monday night, giving the city the power to gather information on construction companies' private affairs if discrimination is suspected. But a companion proposal giving the city the right to investigate those complaints and ban those companies from winning further city contracts has not been filed. That caused some City Council members to wonder whether they were putting the cart before the horse."  (Rocky Mountain News, by Kevin Flynn 12-29-98)
[former link * ]

Colorado (Denver):  Racial Quota and Reverse Discrimination Legal Fees Breaking City! (no link)
          Denver's "indefensible defense" of their reverse discrimination and racial quotas have begun costing the city's taxpayers BIG bucks!  For example, a reverse discrimination case by the Concrete Works company (filed in 1992!) has resulted in the City of Denver spending $437,956 for outside legal counsel and in-house legal advice.  The Mountain States Legal Foundation, which is representing Concrete Works, says "Every time we go into a (court) room, there are five of them and one of us".  C'mon, Denver, just admit that the Constitution guarantees each and every one of us protection against racial discrimination, and you can save your taxpayers MILLIONS of dollars!  (Denver Post, 7/5/98 - link no longer available.)  [See Also Reverse Discrimination Lawsuit, above.]

Colorado (Denver):  State Must Overhaul (throw out) Its Minority Contracting Rules! (dead link)
          Colorado Gov. Roy Romer has ordered the state to "revamp" its minority-contracting rules.  Romer was responding to a study which showed that the current rules have NOT resulted in any statistically-significant increase in the percentage of state business gleaned by women- and minority-owned businesses.  (Denver Post, 8/26/98)
[former link]

Colorado (Denver):  Denver Public Schools Fined $180,000 for Reverse Discrimination Against Contractor (no link)
          White-owned Bassette & Associates construction firm sued the Denver Public Schools in 1997 after the school district awarded a race-based contract to a less-qualified contractor.  Mountain States Legal Foundation represented the non-minority firm.  (Denver Post, 8/27/98 - link no longer available)

District of Columbia (Washington, DC):  City Acts to Spend More of Its [Minority] Money at Home (07/27/99)
          "D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) signed legislation yesterday to make a larger share of $735 million in government contracts available to small [minority] businesses in the city, slowing the flow of millions of dollars to firms outside the District.

          "Under the new law, the city will maintain a file of suppliers who have been approved to offer goods and services on a recurring basis. It is estimated that in 2000, at least $600 million, or 80 percent, of the money for these contracts will be set aside for small and disadvantaged [minority] businesses in the District.

          "[DC Mayor] Williams stressed that businesses wanting to participate in the set-aside program must have their headquarters in the District and pay city taxes. He and other officials said the new procedures will not raise the cost of buying goods and services, in part because more D.C. firms will join the supplier pool.

          "Malcolm Beech, president of the Minority Business Coalition, praised Williams for making changes in the city's procurement process one of his priorities.  'Business begins at home,' he said.   'We at the Minority Business Coalition feel we finally have an ally.'" (Washington Post 07/27/99 page B02 by Yolanda Woodlee)
[link ]

Delaware (Wilmington):  White Woman Wins Racial Bias Case!  (03/23/99) (no link)
          "In a stunning reversal for the city of Wilmington, Del. and the administration of Mayor James Sills, a federal jury has concluded the city discriminated against an employee because she's white.

          "The jury last week awarded 49-year-old Paula Manolakos $708,000, with $500,000 of that amount in punitive damages assessed evenly between Sills and former Wilmington personnel director Wayne Crosse. Assistant City Solicitor John Morgan says Wilmington will indemnify each defendant completely.

          "The controversy stems from a round of Wilmington layoffs in 1995. At the time, the city was running a steep budget deficit and had to jettison dozens of jobs to balance its ledger.  The Sills administration had drawn up one plan for job cuts, and included Manolakos' position as an information systems manager within the city Finance Department.

          "During the trial Sills testified, "We didn't make a decision to take Paula Manolakos out of the budget; we made a decision to take her position out of the budget." But the jury concluded Sills and Crosse had targeted Manolakos personally.

          "When her position of 14 years was terminated, Manolakos says, "My whole life had been turned around. They were trying to take my livelihood away."  (Delaware Law Weekly, 03/23/99, by Jim DeSouza)
[former link *]

End "City Set-Asides (1) Alabama - Delaware" Page

ALL the News Index MAIN
City Set-Asides
City Set-Asides
City Set-Asides
City Set-Asides
City Set-Asides
City Set-Asides
City Set-Asides

Main Site Index:

Go to Top of Page

by category
Contributions are tax-deductible

and case studies
and Definitions
Firms and Resources
GO:  Home Page
Page Index
URL's and page names for site

National opinion

How Quotas are Enforced
What's Hot!

D.O.J. Requires It!

News Analysis

Copyright 2002 Adversity.Net, Inc., an IRS 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization.  For problems or questions regarding this web contact    Last updated: March 25, 2001.

Go to Adversity.Net Home Page

*  We use the term reverse discrimination reluctantly and only because it is so widely understood.  In our opinion there really is only one kind of discrimination.