(6) Tennessee thru Wyoming:  State Contractors suffer "reverse discrimination" due to racial set-asides and racial quotas!

Affirmative Discrimination is Unconstitutional

Site Index / Menu.

(6) Tennessee thru Wyoming
State Contractors and
Racial Set-Asides

Last Updated
October 15, 2002

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

Texas (State):

          Sorry:  Texas stories have moved to a new page!  Please bookmark it:

Utah (State):
White, Male-Owned Businesses are NOT Entitled to Equal Protection Under the Law!

          In 1995 the Cache Valley Electrical Co. submitted the lowest bids for two separate contracts for federally funded highway projects in Utah. But because the company is owned by a white male, both of its low bids were rejected. Instead, two contractors with more expensive bids were awarded the contracts because those business were owned by minorities!

          Jack Laub, the white, male owner of Cache Valley Electrical enlisted the aid of the Mountain States Legal Foundation to sue for reverse discrimination.

          Hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal services later, three courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have refused to overturn this overt racism against white business owners.

HISTORYFirst, U.S. District Judge David Winder dismissed the lawsuit, saying that Cache Valley Electrical lacked the legal standing to sue because it could not prove that the program's preferences in favor of women and racial minorities had hurt Cache Valley Electrical!

          Second, owner Jack Laub and the Mountain States Legal Foundation appealed the decision to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In July 1998 the appellate court upheld the suit’s dismissal by U.S. District Judge David Winder.

          Third, and finally, on March 29, 1999 the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear Laub’s (and Mountain State’s) appeal to the high court. Without comment, the Justices refused to hear the appeal, thereby allowing the lower court decisions in favor of federal reverse discrimination against white, male-owned businesses to stand.

          Note:  The High Court’s refusal to hear the appeal does not constitute a decision, and does not constitute legal precedent in favor of government racial preferences in awarding of contracts.

WHAT IS THE "LAW"?  The federal government’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program mandates that no fewer than 10 percent of all federally funded highway construction contracts be awarded to small business concerns owned and controlled by minorities and women.

          Thus, a woman or minority owned business is guaranteed preferential treatment for 10% of all federal highway contracts. A woman or minority owned business is also free to bid against white, male-owned businesses on the remaining 90% of federal highway contracts. BUT white, male-owned businesses enjoy no such protection:  they are specifically excluded from bidding on 10% of federal highway contracts due to their race and gender, and are thus not faced with a level playing field.

          Legal Cite:  Cache Valley Electrical Co. vs. Utah Department of Transportation, 98-579.  (Based on Associated Press, 03/29/99, by Richard Carelli, via FoxNews)
[former link **http://www.foxnews.com/js_index.sml?content=/news/national/0329/d_ap_0329_59.sml]

See Also:  DOT - The Fed's Racial Quota Hammer!

Virginia (Richmond):

          No entries at this time.

Washington (Seattle):
After I-200, Washington's Minority List Shrinks (02/15/99)

          "Cheri French owns one of the first women's businesses ever certified for the state's affirmative-action contracting program - she even boasts of her low certification number, 43.  Then voters approved Initiative 200, which ended mandatory goals for the participation of minority and women's firms in state business contracts.

          " 'I'm not recertifying,' said French, owner of Builders Exchange of Washington in Everett.  'When the election happened last November, it was like, 'What's the point?'

          "She's not alone. Since last fall the number of firms certified by the state as minority or women-owned businesses has dropped by 20 percent, from about 4,600 to 3,700."  [After all, if the firm is not competitively qualified, why should it be given extra preference by the state?]   (Seattle Times, 02/15/99, by Tom Brune)

[last known link http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/drop_021599.html ]

Washington (Seattle): 
DSHS Worker Fired for Blowing Whistle on Minority Contractor Corruption (01/03/99)

          Touchstones was a nonprofit group that served minorities throughout Washington and received money from myriad state agencies, including the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS). When Mark Usdane found out that Touchstones was double-billing DSHS, he told the state auditor, and DSHS rewarded Mr. Usdane by firing him.

          What Usdane didn’t know until too late was that the president of Touchstones had highly-placed friends at DSHS.   The Human Rights Commission has ruled that Mark Usdane had, indeed, been fired by DSHS for blowing the whistle on Touchstones.  But Usdane remains unemployed while DSHS fights back.  DSHS spokesperson Gordon Schultz told the Seattle Times their official position is that Usdane's allegations are groundless, and he indicated that DSHS is looking forward to dragging out the proceeding for as long as possible.

          According to the Seattle Times, Touchstones is now out of business, and attempts to reach it former president, Mr. Joe Garcia,  for comment have been unsuccessful.  (Excerpted from the Jim Lynch story in the Seattle Times 01-03-99)

[last known link  http://archives.seattletimes.com/cgi-bin/texis/web/vortex/display?storyID=110061&query=

Wisconsin (Milwaukee):
Black Contractors Guaranteed $984,539 Because of Color (01/11/99)

          Milwaukee's I-94 repaving project included a stipulation from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation:  hire a certain number of minority and women subcontractors, or else!  Prime contractors jumped through the required hoops and doled out the race money as directed.   Additionally, the Wisconsin DOT shelled out $302,000 for a study to think up ways for white contractors to spend money on minority contractors!  The best wrinkle of the whole story, though, is that black and other minority leaders were angered last year when the owner of the Lunda Construction company met part of its "minority and women subcontracting goal" by shelling out a $426,535 subcontract to his daughter!   But they were just following the rules!  (Excerpted from the Larry Sandler story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 01-11-99)

[last known link http://www.jsonline.com/news/Metro/990111blackfirmsshareofi94w.asp ]

Editors Note:   According to Wisconsin DOT's own figures, the agency annually sets aside $25 million to $30 million exclusively for contractors of the correct race, gender or ethnicity.  The state agency maintains and staffs several programs exclusively to assist racial minorities, including the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program.   In its descriptive literature, WisDOT euphemistically states that minority "opportunities are emergeing in all modes of transportation, including construction and consulting" as a direct result of the agency's racial contracting set-asides.

End State Set-Asides (6) Tennessee thru Wyoming Page

Use your Browser's BACK Button, or make another selection:

ALL the News Index MAIN State Employment
and Contracting
State Set-Asides
State Set-Asides
State Set-Asides
State Set-Asides
State Set-Asides
State 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 editor@adversity.net    Last updated: October 15, 2002.

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.