Associated General Contractors of America v. California Department

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ASSOCIATED GENERAL

CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, SAN

DIEGO CHAPTER, INC., a non profitCalifornia corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION; WILL KEMPTON,individually and in his officialcapacity as Director of the CaliforniaDepartment of Transportation;OLIVIA FONSECA,

Defendants-Appellees,

COALITION FOR ECONOMIC EQUITY;NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE

ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED

PEOPLE, San Diego Chapter,Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-16228

D.C. No.2:09-cv-01622-

JAM-GGH

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and SubmittedFebruary 11, 2013—San Francisco, California

2 ASSOC. GEN. CONTRACTORS V. CAL. DEP’T OF TRANSP.

This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has*

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

Filed April 16, 2013

Before: Jerome Farris, Sidney R. Thomas,and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Farris

SUMMARY*

Civil Rights

The panel dismissed an appeal from the district court’ssummary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in whichplaintiffs, Associated General Contractors of America, soughtdeclaratory and injunctive relief against the CaliforniaDepartment of Transportation (Caltrans) and its officers, onthe grounds that Caltrans’ 2009 Disadvantaged BusinessEnterprise program unconstitutionally provided race- and sex-based preferences to African American-, Native American-,Asian-Pacific American-, and women-owned firms on certaintransportation contracts.

The panel held that AGC did not identify any of itsmembers who have suffered or will suffer harm as a result ofCaltrans’ affirmative action program, and therefore AGC hadnot established that it has associational standing to bring suit.The panel further held that even if AGC could establishstanding, its appeal would fail. The panel held that Caltrans’program survived strict scrutiny by (1) having a strong basis

3ASSOC. GEN. CONTRACTORS V. CAL. DEP’T OF TRANSP.

in evidence of discrimination within the Californiatransportation contracting industry; and (2) being narrowlytailored to benefit only those groups that have actuallysuffered discrimination.

COUNSEL

Ralph W. Kasarda, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento,California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

G. Scott Emblidge, Moscone Emblidge & Sater LLP, SanFrancisco, California, for Defendant-Appellee; Oren M.Sellstrom, San Francisco, California, for Intervenors-Defendants-Appellees.

Angela C. Thompson, Sacramento, California, for AmicusCuriae United States Justice Foundation.

Sharon M. McGowan, United States Department of Justice,Civil Rights Division, Washington, D.C., for Amicus CuriaeUnited States of America.

OPINION

FARRIS, Senior Circuit Judge:

Associated General Contractors of America, San DiegoChapter, appeals from the district court’s adverse summaryjudgment rulings. AGC sought declaratory and injunctiverelief against the California Department of Transportation andits officers, on the grounds that Caltrans’ 2009 DisadvantagedBusiness Enterprise program unconstitutionally provided


Caltrans’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED to the extent that it1

is compatible with FED . R. EVID . 201 and “do[es] not require the

acceptance of facts subject to reasonable dispute.” California ex rel.

RoNo, LLC v. Altus Fin. S.A., 344 F.3d 920, 931 n.8 (9th Cir. 2003)

(internal quotation marks omitted). The motion of the United States

Justice Foundation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is

GRANTED .

race- and sex-based preferences to African American-, NativeAmerican-, Asian-Pacific American-, and women-ownedfirms on certain transportation contracts. The Coalition forEconomic Equity and the National Association for theAdvancement of Colored People, San Diego Chapter,intervened to defend the program.

On summary judgment, the district court upheld theconstitutionality of Caltrans’ program and entered judgmentfor the defendants. Following Western States Paving Co. v.Washington Sate Department of Transportation, 407 F.3d983 (9th Cir. 2005), the district court held that Caltrans’program would satisfy strict scrutiny if it had a strong basisin evidence of discrimination in the California transportationcontracting industry, and the program was narrowly tailoredto those groups that actually suffered discrimination. Thecourt held that Caltrans’ substantial statistical and anecdotalevidence provided a strong basis in evidence ofdiscrimination against the four named groups, and that theprogram was narrowly tailored to benefit only those groups.AGC appealed. We DISMISS the appeal because AGC didnot identify any of its members who have suffered or willsuffer harm as a result of Caltrans’ program, and thereforeAGC has not established that it has associational standing tobring suit.1


I. BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Statutory and Regulatory Background

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient TransportationEquity Act: A Legacy for Users, Pub. L. No. 109-59,§ 1101(b), 119 Stat. 1144 (2005), authorizes the U.S.Department of Transportation to distribute funds to states fortransportation-related projects. The Act is the most recentfederal statute providing for race- and gender-basedpreferences in the transportation contracting industry inresponse to pervasive and ongoing discrimination. SeeWestern States, 407 F.3d at 988 & n.3. The Act directs theSecretary of Transportation to ensure that 10% of fundsdistributed to states and municipalities are expended on“disadvantaged business enterprises.” § 1101(b)(2), 119 Stat.at 1156.

The Act does not establish a uniform national affirmativeaction program. Each state that receives federal funds mustimplement a preference program that complies with federalregulations. See 49 C.F.R. § 26.1 et. seq. The regulationsdefine “disadvantaged business enterprises” as smallbusinesses owned or controlled by “socially andeconomically disadvantaged” individuals. Id. § 26.5. There isa reubuttable presumption that African Americans, HispanicAmericans, Native Americans, Asian-Pacific Americans,Subcontinent Asian Americans, and women are socially andeconomically disadvantaged. Id. § 26.67.

States that receive federal funding must establish overallgoals for disadvantaged business participation in federallyassisted contracts. Id. § 26.45(a). In the process of setting agoal, the state must first determine the availability of


disadvantaged businesses in its jurisdiction. Id. § 26.45(c).Then, the state may make an upward or downward adjustmentto account for factors affecting the availability ofdisadvantaged businesses. Id. § 26.45(d). After comparingavailability data with the actual utilization of disadvantagedbusinesses, the state sets an overall goal to address significantdisparities. Id. § 26.45(e).

States must use race- and gender-neutral means to meettheir goals to the maximum extent possible, but may use race-and gender-conscious means if necessary. Id. § 26.51(a)–(d).Generally, race- and gender-conscious means may not betargeted at specific groups. Id. § 26.51(e)(4). However, a statemay use race-conscious means directed at specific minoritygroups, if it obtains a waiver. See id. § 26.15. States mustseek approval of their affirmative action programs by the U.S.Department of Transportation every three years. Id.§ 26.45(f)(1)(i).

B. Ninth Circuit Decision in Western States

In 2005, the Ninth Circuit decided Western States PavingCo. v. Washington State Department of Transportation,407 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2005), which involved a facialchallenge to the constitutional validity of a predecessor lawto the Act, as well as an as-applied challenge to theWashington program implementing the federal mandate.Applying strict scrutiny, we upheld the constitutionality ofthe federal statute and regulations. Id. at 990–95. However,we struck down Washington’s program because it was notnarrowly tailored. Id. at 999–1002. In so doing, WesternStates announced a two-prong test for narrow tailoring: (1)the state must establish the presence of discrimination withinits transportation contracting industry, and (2) the remedial


program must be “limited to those minority groups that haveactually suffered discrimination.” Id. at 997–98.

C. Caltrans’ Implementation of the Act

Caltrans receives up to $3 billion annually from thefederal government for transportation projects. Prior to 2006,Caltrans administered a race- and gender-consciousaffirmative action program on federally assisted contracts.However, on May 1, 2006, Caltrans ceased to use race- andgender-conscious measures while it gathered evidence in aneffort to comply with Western States.

1. Evidence Gathering and the 2007 DisparityStudy

Caltrans commissioned a disparity study by BBCResearch and Consulting to determine whether there wasevidence of discrimination in California’s contractingindustry. Disparity analysis involves making a comparisonbetween the availability of minority- and women-ownedbusinesses and their actual utilization, producing a numbercalled a “disparity index.” An index of 100 representsstatistical parity between availability and utilization, and anumber below 100 indicates underutilization. An index below80 is considered a substantial disparity that supports aninference of discrimination. See H.B. Rowe Co. v. Tippett,615 F.3d 233, 243–44 (4th Cir. 2010).

The research firm gathered extensive data to calculatedisadvantaged business availability in the Californiatransportation contracting industry. Based on review of publicrecords, interviews, assessments as to whether a firm could beconsidered available for Caltrans contracts, as well as


numerous other adjustments, the firm concluded thatminority- and women-owned businesses should be expectedto receive 13.5% of contract dollars from Caltransadministered federally assisted contracts.

The research firm then examined over 10,000transportation-related contracts administered by Caltransbetween 2002 and 2006 to determine actual DBE utilization.The firm assessed disparities across a variety of contracts,separately assessing contracts based on funding source (stateor federal), type of contract (prime or subcontract), and typeof project (engineering or construction). A key differencebetween federally funded and state funded contracts is thatrace-conscious goals were in place for the federally fundedcontracts during the 2002–2006 period, but not for the statefunded contracts. Thus, state funded contracts functioned asa control group to help determine whether previousaffirmative action programs skewed the data. Moreover, theresearch firm measured disparities in all twelve of Caltrans’administrative districts, and computed aggregate disparitiesbased on statewide data.

The firm evaluated statistical disparities by race andgender. To control for gender, the firm grouped women whowere members of racial minorities with male members of thesame minority. As such, its report describes its gender controlgroup as “white women-owned firms” and measuresdisparities for this group, as well as firms owned by AfricanAmericans, Native Americans, Asian-Pacific Americans,Subcontinent Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans.

The research firm published its results in June 2007.Within and across many categories of contracts, it foundsubstantial statistical disparities for African American, Asian-


Pacific, and Native American firms. For example, inaggregated state funded contracts, African Americansreceived only 15% of the contract dollars that would beexpected, given their availability, and Asian-Pacific andNative Americans earned less than one-third and two-thirds,respectively. However, there were not substantial disparitiesfor these minorities in every subcategory of contract. Forexample, the disparity indices for Native and Asian-PacificAmericans were above 80 in federally funded constructionsubcontracts.

The disparity study also found substantial disparities inutilization of women-owned firms for some categories ofcontracts. For example, the disparity index for white womenon aggregated state funded contracts was 48. Afterpublication of the disparity report, BBC calculated disparityindices for all women-owned firms, including femaleminorities. The results showed substantial disparities in theutilization of all women-owned firms similar to thosemeasured for white women. For some subcategories ofcontracts, there was no substantial disparity for white women-owned firms.

Caltrans and the research firm also gathered extensiveanecdotal evidence by (1) conducting twelve public hearingsto receive comments on the firm’s findings; (2) receivingletters from business owners and trade associations; and(3) interviewing representatives from twelve tradeassociations and 79 owners/managers of transportation firms.Some of the anecdotal evidence indicated discriminationbased on race or gender.


2. Design of Caltrans’ Affirmative ActionProgram

Caltrans concluded that the evidence supported aninference of discrimination in the California transportationcontracting industry. Specifically, Caltrans concluded that ithad sufficient evidence to make race- and gender-consciousgoals for African American-, Asian-Pacific American-,Native American-, and women-owned firms. Caltransadopted the recommendations of the disparity report and setan overall goal of 13.5% for disadvantaged businessparticipation. Caltrans expected to meet one-half of the 13.5%goal using race-neutral measures.

On November 14, 2007, Caltrans submitted its proposedprogram to the U.S. Department of Transportation forapproval. The proposal included a request for a waiver toimplement the program only for the four identified groups.The program included 66 race-neutral measures that Caltransalready operated or planned to implement. Subsequentproposals increased the number of race-neutral measures to150.

On August 7, 2008, the Department of Transportationgranted the waiver, but did not approve Caltrans’ program.On April 2, 2009, the Department of Transportation approvedCaltrans’ program designed for fiscal year 2009.

D. District Court Proceedings

On June 11, 2009, AGC filed a complaint alleging thatCaltrans’ implementation of the Act violated inter alia theFourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act, and Article I, section 31 of the


California Constitution. On December 17, 2010, AGCvoluntarily dropped its state constitutional claim, and onlyargued an as-applied challenge to Caltrans’ affirmative actionprogram. On December 23, 2009, the district court granted amotion filed by the Coalition for Economic Equity and theNAACP, San Diego Chapter to intervene as defendants.

Following discovery, all parties filed summary judgmentmotions. On March 23, 2011, the district court grantedCaltrans’ and Intervenors’ motions and denied AGC’smotion. The court held that Caltrans’ program was “clearlyconstitutional,” as it was supported by a strong basis inevidence of discrimination in the California contractingindustry and was narrowly tailored to those groups which hadactually suffered discrimination.

E. Subsequent Caltrans Program

While this appeal was pending, Caltrans commissioned anew disparity study from the research firm to update itspreference program as required by the federal regulations. See49 C.F.R. § 26.45(f)(1)(i). On August 31, 2012, the researchfirm published its second disparity report. Caltrans concludedthat the updated study provided evidence of continuingdiscrimination in the California transportation contractingindustry against African Americans, Native Americans,Asian-Pacific Americans, Hispanic Americans, and women.Caltrans submitted a modified disadvantaged businessenterprise program that is nearly identical to the programapproved in 2009, except that it now includes HispanicAmericans and sets an overall goal of 12.5%, of which 9.5%will be achieved through race- and gender-consciousmeasures. On November 29, 2012, the U.S. Department ofTransportation approved Caltrans’ updated program.


II. JURISDICTION

Before reaching the merits, we must determine whetherwe have jurisdiction over AGC’s appeal. See Steel Co. v.Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1998).Caltrans argues that jurisdiction is precluded by the doctrinesof mootness and standing.

A. Mootness

In a letter filed shortly before oral argument, Caltranscontends that many issues raised in AGC’s appeal are mootbecause Caltrans has enacted a new affirmative actionprogram since AGC filed its appeal.

The Supreme Court rejected a similar argument inNortheastern Florida Chapter of Associated GeneralContractors of America v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656(1993). In Northeastern Florida, the plaintiff challenged aJacksonville ordinance establishing a disadvantaged businessenterprise program granting race-based preferences in publiccontracting. Id. at 658–59. Shortly after the Supreme Courtgranted certiorari, Jacksonville repealed the ordinance andreplaced it with a substantially similar one. The Court heldthat the original case was not moot because “a defendant’svoluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprivea federal court of its power to determine the legality of thepractice.” Id. at 661–62 (quoting City of Mesquite v.Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289 (1982)). Inlanguage equally applicable to the instant case, the Courtreasoned that there was not merely a risk that the governmentwould repeat the challenged conduct, it had already done soby instituting a substantially similar preference program. Id.at 662. Similarly, the appeal in the instant case is not moot.


Caltrans’ new preference program is substantially similar tothe prior program and is alleged to disadvantage AGC’smembers “in the same fundamental way” as the previousprogram. See id.

B. Standing

To establish associational standing, AGC must show:

(a) its members would otherwise havestanding to sue in their own right;

(b) the interests it seeks to protect aregermane to the organization’s purpose; and

(c) neither the claim asserted nor the reliefrequested requires the participation ofindividual members in the lawsuit.

Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. Metro. Water Dist. ofS. Cal., 159 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 1998) (citationomitted); see also Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S.488, 494 (2009). The second and third prongs are not at issuehere. See Metro. Water, 159 F.3d at 1181 (concluding thatAGC’s lawsuit was germane to its purpose and that theinjunctive and declaratory relief sought did not require theindividual participation of members).

To meet the first prong, AGC must show that a membersuffers an injury-in-fact that is traceable to the defendant andlikely to be redressed by a favorable decision. See Braunsteinv. Arizona Dep’t of Transp., 683 F.3d 1177, 1184 (9th Cir.2012); see also Summers, 555 U.S. at 494; Lujan v. Defendersof Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573 (1992). AGC’s effort to prove


the requisite injury to a member requires, first, “specificallegations establishing that at least one identified memberhad suffered or would suffer harm.” Summers, 555 U.S. at498 (emphasis added). The “requirement of naming theaffected members has never been dispensed with in light ofstatistical probabilities.” Id. at 498–99. Moreover, onsummary judgment, AGC was required to submit competentevidence, not mere allegations, to demonstrate that at leastone of its members had standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561;see also Metro. Water, 159 F.3d at 1181 (holding that AGCestablished associational standing where AGC’s standingargument was supported by affidavits from membercompanies showing harm).

AGC fails to meet this standard. AGC does not identifyany affected members by name nor has it submitteddeclarations by any of its members attesting to harm theyhave suffered or will suffer under Caltrans’ program. Theonly evidence AGC relies on to satisfy standing is adeclaration from James Ryan, AGC’s Executive VicePresident, and many relevant portions of the declaration werestruck from the record by the district court in an evidentiaryruling that AGC does not challenge. In any event, the Ryandeclaration does not name any specific members of AGC whowould be harmed by Caltrans’ program.

At oral argument, AGC contended that the generalallegations in its complaint asserting that its members wouldsuffer harm is sufficient to establish standing underNortheastern Florida. AGC’s reliance on NortheasternFlorida is misplaced. In Northeastern Florida, standing wasupheld based on uncontested allegations in a verifiedcomplaint that the plaintiff’s members suffered the requisiteharm. See 508 U.S. at 668–69. Because the allegations were


not challenged, the Court reasoned that it had to accept themas true. Id. In contrast, Caltrans disputes AGC’s allegationsand undermined any evidentiary support that AGC offered tosubstantiate those allegations. Additionally, AGC concedesthat unlike Northeastern Florida, its complaint was notverified. An unverified complaint cannot form the basis ofevidence considered at summary judgment. Moran v. Selig,447 F.3d 748, 759–60 (9th Cir. 2006).

Because AGC has failed to establish standing, we mustDISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Summers,555 U.S. at 492–93.

III.

Further, even if AGC could establish standing, its appealwould fail. Caltrans’ affirmative action program isconstitutional, so long as it survives the applicable level ofscrutiny required by Equal Protection jurisprudence.

Race-conscious remedial programs must satisfy strictscrutiny. Western States, 407 F.3d at 990 (citing AdarandConstructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995)(Adarand III)). Racial classifications survive strict scrutiny ifthey are “narrowly tailored measures that further compellinggovernmental interests.” Id. “The burden of justifyingdifferent treatment by ethnicity . . . is always on thegovernment.” Id. Although stringent, strict scrutiny is not“fatal in fact.” Adarand III, 515 U.S. at 237. “The unhappypersistence of both the practice and the lingering effects ofracial discrimination against minority groups in this countryis an unfortunate reality, and government is not disqualifiedfrom acting in response to it.” Id.


Gender-conscious programs must satisfy intermediatescrutiny. Western States, 407 F.3d at 990 n.6. Intermediatescrutiny requires that gender-conscious programs be“supported by an ‘exceedingly persuasive justification’ andsubstantially related to the achievement of that underlyingobjective.” Id. (quoting United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S.515, 524 (1996)).

Caltrans’ affirmative action program contains both race-and gender-conscious measures. The entire program passesstrict scrutiny. It is therefore unnecessary to undertake aseparate analysis under intermediate scrutiny. See id.

A. Application of Strict Scrutiny StandardArticulated in Western States

The framework for AGC’s as-applied challenge toCaltrans’ affirmative action program is governed by WesternStates, 407 F.3d at 995–1002. Western States held that thestate “need not demonstrate an independent compellinginterest for its [affirmative action] program” because thestate’s program rested upon the compelling nationwideinterest identified by Congress in passing the federal statute.Id. at 997. The Court then devised a two-prong test fornarrow tailoring: (1) the state must establish the presence ofdiscrimination within its transportation contracting industry,and (2) the remedial program must be “limited to thoseminority groups that have actually suffered discrimination.”Id. at 997–99.


1. Evidence of Discrimination in CaliforniaContracting Industry

In Equal Protection cases, courts consider statistical andanecdotal evidence to identify the existence of discrimination.E.g., Western States, 407 F.3d at 991; Adarand Constructors,Inc. v. Slater, 228 F.3d 1147, 1166 (10th Cir. 2000). TheSupreme Court has suggested that a “significant statisticaldisparity” could be sufficient to justify race-consciousremedial programs. City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.,488 U.S. 469, 509 (1989). Although generally not sufficient,anecdotal evidence complements statistical evidence becauseof its ability to bring “the cold numbers convincingly to life.”Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 339(1977).

Western States concluded that Washington’s affirmativeaction program was not supported by sufficient evidence. Id.at 999–1002. Washington had performed no statistical studiesand offered no anecdotal evidence. Id. at 1000–01. Instead,Washington merely compared the availability ofdisadvantaged businesses to the percentage of contract dollarsawarded to such businesses. Id. at 1000. The Court criticizedWashington’s oversimplified methodology, and gave littleweight to the purported disparity because Washington’s datadid not account for the relative capacity of disadvantagedbusinesses to perform work, nor did it control for the fact thatexisting affirmative action programs skewed the priorutilization of minority businesses in the state. Id. The Courtstruck down Washington’s program after determining that therecord was “devoid of any evidence suggesting thatminorities currently suffer—or have ever suffered—discrimination in the Washington transportation contractingindustry.” Id. at 1002.


In contrast, Caltrans’ affirmative action program issupported by substantial statistical and anecdotal evidence ofdiscrimination in the California transportation contractingindustry. The 2007 disparity study documented disparities inthe utilization of African American-, Native American-,Asian-Pacific American-, and women-owned firms in manycategories of transportation contracts. The study accountedfor the factors mentioned in Western States as well as others,adjusting availability data based on capacity to perform workand controlling for previously administered affirmative actionprograms. See Western States, 407 F.3d at 1000. Moreover,the statistical evidence from the disparity study is bolsteredby anecdotal evidence supporting an inference ofdiscrimination. The substantial statistical disparities alonewould give rise to an inference of discrimination, see Croson,488 U.S. at 509, and certainly Caltrans’ statistical evidencecombined with anecdotal evidence passes constitutionalmuster.

AGC urges that strict scrutiny requires Caltrans to provideevidence of “specific acts” of “deliberate” discrimination byCaltrans employees or prime contractors, which Caltrans hasfailed to do. AGC derives this purported rule from Croson’srequirement that race-conscious measures be limited toaddress discrimination that the state has identified “with somespecificity.” 488 U.S. at 504.

AGC reads Croson too broadly. Croson explicitly statesthat “[t]he degree of specificity required in the findings ofdiscrimination . . . may vary.” Id. at 489 (quotation marks andcitation omitted). Moreover, a rule requiring the state to showspecific acts of deliberate discrimination by identifiedindividuals would run contrary to the statement in Crosonthat statistical disparities alone could be sufficient to support


race-conscious remedial programs. Id. at 509. This Court haspreviously rejected a similar interpretation of Croson. SeeAssociated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Coal. for Econ.Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1416 n.11 (9th Cir. 1991) (AGCC II)(rejecting AGC’s attempt to “seek[ ] to have us engraft theframework for title VII . . . onto Croson’s equal protectionframework.”). We reject AGC’s argument that Caltrans’program does not survive strict scrutiny because the disparitystudy does not identify individual acts of deliberatediscrimination.

Second, AGC argues that the 2007 disparity study showsinconsistent results for utilization of minority businessesdepending on the type and nature of the contract, and thuscannot support an inference of discrimination in the entiretransportation contracting industry. Specifically, AGC assertsthat the statistical results vary depending on whether thecontracts at issue are prime or subcontracts, and within eachof those categories, results differ as between construction andengineering contracts. AGC appears to contend that each ofthese subcategories of contracts must be viewed in isolationwhen considering whether an inference of discriminationarises.

AGC’s argument overlooks the rationale underpinning theconstitutional justification for remedial race-consciousprograms: they are designed to root out “patterns ofdiscrimination.” Croson, 488 U.S. at 504. The issue is notwhether Caltrans can show underutilization of disadvantagedbusinesses in every measured category of contract. Rather,Caltrans can meet the evidentiary standard required byWestern States if, looking at the evidence in its entirety, thedata show substantial disparities in utilization of minorityfirms suggesting that public dollars are being poured into “a


system of racial exclusion practiced by elements of the localconstruction industry.” Id. at 492.

The 2007 disparity study and anecdotal evidencedocument a pattern of disparities for African American-,Native American-, Asian-Pacific American-, and women-owned firms. The study found substantial underutilization ofthese groups in numerous categories of Californiatransportation contracts, which the anecdotal evidenceconfirms. This is sufficient to enable Caltrans to infer thatthese groups are systematically discriminated against inpublicly-funded contracts.

Third, AGC contends that the anecdotal evidence haslittle or no probative value in identifying discriminationbecause it is not verified. AGC cites to no controllingauthority for a verification requirement. Both the Fourth andTenth Circuits have rejected the need to verify anecdotalevidence. Rowe, 615 F.3d at 249; Concrete Works of Colo.,Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 321 F.3d 950, 989 (10th Cir.2003). AGC makes no persuasive argument that we shouldhold otherwise.

AGC also discounts the anecdotal evidence because someaccounts ascribe minority underutilization to factors otherthan overt discrimination, such as difficulties with obtainingbonding and breaking into the “good ole boy” network ofcontractors. However, federal courts and regulations haveidentified precisely these factors as barriers that disadvantageminority firms because of the lingering effects ofdiscrimination. See, e.g., Western States, 407 F.3d at 992;AGCC II, 950 F.2d at 1414; 49 C.F.R. § 26.45(d)(2)(i).Morever, AGC ignores the many incidents of racial andgender discrimination presented in the anecdotal evidence.


Caltrans does not claim, and the anecdotal evidence does notneed to prove, that every minority-owned business isdiscriminated against. It is enough that the anecdotal evidencesupports Caltrans’ statistical data showing a pervasive patternof discrimination. See AGCC II, 950 F.2d at 1414. Theindividual accounts of discrimination offered by Caltrans andIntervenors meet this burden.

Fourth, AGC contends that Caltrans’ evidence does notsupport an inference of discrimination against all womenbecause gender-based disparities in the 2007 study are limitedto white women. AGC misunderstands the statisticaltechniques used in the disparity study. The 2007 reportcorrectly isolates the effect of gender by limiting its data poolto white women, ensuring that statistical results for gender-based discrimination are not skewed by discriminationagainst minority women on account of their race. The originaldisparity report discusses this standard social sciencetechnique and explains that “[e]vidence of discriminationagainst white women-owned firms should be consideredevidence of discrimination against women of any race.”Moreover, after AGC’s early objections to the methodology,the research firm conducted a follow-up analysis of allwomen-owned firms, which produced a disparity index of 59.This index is evidence of a substantial disparity that raises aninference of discrimination and is sufficient to supportCaltrans’ decision to include all women in its affirmativeaction program. See Rowe, 615 F.3d at 243–44.

2. Program Tailored to Groups Who ActuallySuffered Discrimination

The second prong of the test articulated in Western Statesrequires that an affirmative action program be limited to those


groups that actually suffered discrimination in the state’stransportation contracting industry. 407 F.3d at 998–99.When explaining the justification for the second prong, thisCourt seemed primarily concerned with the “randominclusion of racial groups” in affirmative action programs. Id.at 998 (quoting Croson, 488 U.S. at 506). For example, theCourt cited the quota system in Richmond, Virginia, at issuein Croson, which encompassed U.S. citizens who were“Blacks, Spanish-speaking, Orientals, Indians, Eskimos, andAleuts.” Id. (quoting Croson, 488 U.S. at 478). In Croson, theSupreme Court reasoned that lumping together random racialgroups—particularly Aleuts and Eskimos, for which therewas no evidence of discrimination in the Richmondconstruction industry—suggested that the city’s program wasnot intended to remedy past discrimination. Croson, 488 U.S.at 506. After discussing Croson, the Court in Western Statescited to numerous other cases striking down preferenceprograms that included racial groups for which there was noevidence that they had actually been discriminated against inthe relevant industry. Western States, 407 F.3d at 998–99(citing cases).

The issue is whether the Caltrans’ affirmative actionprogram “is limited to those minority groups that haveactually suffered discrimination.” Id. at 998. It is. The 2007disparity study showed systematic and substantialunderutilization of African American-, Native American-,Asian-Pacific American-, and women-owned firms across arange of contract categories. These disparities support aninference of discrimination against those groups. See Rowe,615 F.3d at 243–44. Caltrans concluded that the statisticalevidence did not support an inference of a pattern ofdiscrimination against Hispanic or Subcontinent AsianAmericans. Although the federal regulations generally do not


allow states to create affirmative action programs that benefitsome groups but not others, California applied for andreceived a waiver in order to limit its 2009 preferenceprogram to African American, Native American, Asian-Pacific American, and women-owned firms. Caltrans’program adheres precisely to the narrow tailoringrequirements of Western States.

AGC contends that the program is not narrowly tailoredbecause it creates race-based preferences for alltransportation-related contracts, rather than distinguishingbetween construction and engineering contracts. However,AGC cites to no case that requires a state preference programto provide separate goals for disadvantaged businessparticipation on construction and engineering contracts. Tothe contrary, the federal guidelines for implementing the Actinstruct states not to separate different types of contracts.There are sound policy reasons to not require such parsing,including the fact that there is substantial overlap in firmscompeting for construction and engineering contracts, asprime and subcontractors. See N. Contracting, Inc. v. Illinois,473 F.3d 715, 723 (7th Cir. 2007) (explaining that “[i]t wouldmake little sense to separate prime contractor[s] andsubcontractor[s]” because the same firms compete for bothtypes of contract).

B. Consideration of Race-Neutral Alternatives

Additionally, AGC asserts that Caltrans’ program is notnarrowly tailored because it failed to evaluate race-neutralmeasures before implementing the system of racialpreferences. The law, however, imposes no such requirement.First, Western States does not require states to independentlymeet this aspect of narrow tailoring, and instead focuses on


whether the federal statute sufficiently considered race-neutral alternatives. 407 F.3d at 995, 997–98. Second, evenif this requirement does apply to Caltrans’ program, narrowtailoring only requires “serious, good faith consideration ofworkable race-neutral alternatives[.]” Grutter v. Bollinger,539 U.S. 306, 339 (2003). The Caltrans program hasconsidered an increasing number of race-neutral alternatives,starting at 45 in 2008 and reaching 150 in 2010. We rejectAGC’s claim that Caltrans’ program does not sufficientlyconsider race-neutral alternatives.

C. Certification Affidavits for DisadvantagedBusiness Enterprises

AGC argues that Caltrans’ program is not narrowlytailored because affidavits that applicants must submit toobtain “disadvantaged business enterprise” certification donot require applicants to assert that they have suffereddiscrimination in California. AGC relies on language inWestern States criticizing similar affidavits for not providing“any evidence of discrimination within Washington’stransportation contracting industry.” 407 F.3d at 1002. AGCtakes the statements from Western States out of context.Western States did not criticize the affidavits for their role inthe certification process; it chastised Washington for usingthe affidavits to serve a completely different purpose: todemonstrate the existence of discrimination withinWashington transportation industry. Id. at 1001–02. Caltranscompleted its own comprehensive disparity study and doesnot rely on the certification affidavits for this purpose.

The certification process employed by Caltrans followsthe process detailed in the federal regulations. See 49 C.F.R.§§ 26.67(a)(1), 26.83(c)(7)(ii). To the extent that AGC


contends that Caltrans’ program is over-inclusive because thecertification form does not require that minority firms attestto the fact that they have been discriminated against inCalifornia, this is an impermissible collateral attack on thefacial validity of the federal Act and regulations. See N.Contracting, 473 F.3d at 722 (plaintiff “cannot collaterallyattack the federal regulations through a challenge to [a state’saffirmative action] program”).

D. Application of Program to Mixed State andFederally Funded Contracts

AGC challenges Caltrans’ application of its affirmativeaction program to transportation contracts funded by bothfederal and state money. This is another impermissiblecollateral attack on the federal program, which explicitlyrequires goals to be set for mix-funded contracts. See49 C.F.R. § 26.45 (recipients “must set an overall goal forDBE participation in your DOT-assisted contracts”); id.§ 26.5 (defining DOT-assisted contracts as any contract“funded in whole or in part with DOT financial assistance”);see also N. Contracting, 473 F.3d at 722 (no collateral attackson federal regulations in challenge to state program).

IV. CONCLUSION

AGC did not identify any of its members that would beharmed by Caltrans’ affirmative action program. AGC hasfailed to establish standing. Further, Caltrans’ programsurvives strict scrutiny by 1) having a strong basis in evidenceof discrimination within the California transportation


contracting industry and 2) being narrowly tailored to benefitonly those groups that have actually suffered discrimination.

DISMISSED.

Date post:	03-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Associated General Contractors of America v. California Department

Documents