|By State and City:
(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
"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
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)
(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 *www.sacbee.com/news/beetoday/newsroom/local/100298/local09.html]
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, http://www.pacificlegal.org/pr-chres.htm)
|Related / Similar:
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)
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 , 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
California (San Francisco): FBI Probes Set-Aside and Quota Corruption
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
[San Francisco / FBI Quota Probe Link: http://www.adversity.net/citysetasides_1_sanfrancisco_fbi.htm
(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
"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
"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)
|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
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)
(San Francisco): City Denies Business to White, Male-Owned
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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: http://www.adversity.net/c27_denver_quotas.htm]
See also additional stories, below.
Minorities optimistic on road
(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
(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
"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)
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.]
|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)
(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.]
(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 www.denverpost.com/business/biz0826c.htm]
(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,
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)
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)
End "City Set-Asides (1) Alabama -