On September 9, 1996 plaintiffs, business owners and a business seeking landscaping contract work from Fulton County, filed suit against Fulton County, GA in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. They alleged discrimination based on race and sex in violation of 42 U.S.C ...
read more >
On September 9, 1996 plaintiffs, business owners and a business seeking landscaping contract work from Fulton County, filed suit against Fulton County, GA in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. They alleged discrimination based on race and sex in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state law, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically they alleged that Fulton County operated an illegal Minority and Female Business Enterprise program that discriminated against whites and males because it established a pattern or practice of engaging in disparate treatment of businesses owned by whites and/or males even when these businesses submitted lower bids and performed superior work. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages, and fees and costs.
After extensive discover, on February 12, 1999 the district court (Judge Thomas Thrash) denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion for summary judgment. On March 1, 1999 the district court (Judge Thrash) denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The case proceeded to a bench trial. On June 11, 1999 the district court (Judge Thrash) ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the basis of a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiffs were granted declaratory and injunctive relief such that the program was declared unconstitutional and Fulton County was enjoined from using racial, ethnic or gender participation goals in accepting or rejecting bids, determining whether bidders are responsive and responsible bidders and in the awarding of Fulton County contracts.
Defendant appealed but on July 19, 2000 the Eleventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals (Judge Anderson, Judge Dubina, and Judge Hill) affirmed. In the meantime a jury trial concerning any monetary damages was conducted and on February 24, 2000 the plaintiffs were awarded $8,750.00 plus costs of $4,399.83. On September 18, 2000 the district court (Judge Thrash) awarded plaintiffs additional fees and costs totaling $1,105,608.09. The Supreme Court declined to issue a writ of certiorari on March 29, 2001. On June 22, 2001 and April 10, 2003 plaintiffs were awarded supplemental fees totaling $110,791.37 for work on various unsuccessful appeals.
During discovery the plaintiffs added a retaliation claim alleging that the defendant had ceased to notify them or award them contracts after they had filed suit. The district court (Judge Thrash) had dismissed this claim on February 12, 1999. After the trial plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the Eleventh Circuit. On February 28, 2002 the Eleventh Circuit (Judge Edmondson, Judge Wilson, and Judge Paul) reversed the district court. On March 11, 2004, however, the district court (Judge Thrash) granted defendant summary judgment on this claim. On February 24, 2005 the Eleventh Circuit affirmed without opinion and the case came to a close.
Michael Perry - 08/25/2010
compress summary