Revised City of South Bend Disparity Study Report

Home Browse Search

City of South Bend Disparity Study 2020 motive for the classification was illegitimate racial prejudice or stereotyping. The Court made clear that strict scrutiny seeks to expose racial stigma; racial classifica- tions are said to create racial hostility if they are based on notions of racial inferior- ity. Richmond's evidence was found to be lacking in every respect. The City could not rely upon the disparity between its utilization of MBE prime contractors and Rich- mond's minority population because not all minority persons would be qualified to perform construction projects; general population representation is irrelevant. No data were presented about the availability of MBEs in either the relevant market area or their utilization as subcontractors on City projects. According to Justice O'Connor, the extremely low MBE membership in local contractors' associations could be explained by "societal" discrimination or perhaps Blacks' lack of interest in participating as business owners in the construction industry. To be relevant, the City would have to demonstrate statistical disparities between eligible MBEs and actual membership in trade or professional groups. Further, Richmond pre- sented no evidence concerning enforcement of its own anti -discrimination ordi- nance. Finally, Richmond could not rely upon Congress' determination that there has been nationwide discrimination in the construction industry. Congress recog- nized that the scope of the problem varies from market to market, and in any event, it was exercising its powers under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amend- ment, whereas a local government is further constrained by the Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. In the case at hand, the City has not ascertained how many minority enterprises are present in the local construction market nor the level of their participation in City construction projects. The City points to no evidence that qualified minority contractors have been passed over for City contracts or subcontracts, either as a group or in any individual case. Under such circumstances, it is simply impossible to say that the City has demonstrated "a strong basis in evidence for its conclusion that remedial action was necessary." 18 The foregoing analysis was applied onlyto Blacks. The Court then emphasized that there was "absolutely no evidence" of discrimination against other minorities. "The random inclusion of racial groups that, as a practical matter, may have never suffered from discrimination in the construction industry in Richmond, suggests that perhaps the City's purpose was not in fact to remedy past discrimination."19 17. See also Gruffer v Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 327 (2003) ("Not every decision influenced by race is equal ly objectionable, and strict scrutiny Is designed to provide a framework for carefully examining the importance and the sincerity of the reasons advanced by the governmental decision maker for the use of race in that particular context."). 18. Id. at 510. 19. Id. O 2020 Colette Holt & Associates, All Rights Reserved. 23