 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi-Voltage Wire Works11/30/2000
oyment, public education, and public contracting to all members of the community.
Indeed, the numerous additional features of the public contracting outreach program that the city recently has put in place, and that have not been challenged in this proceeding, provide ready examples of just a few of the many forms of affirmative action that clearly are consistent with the provisions of article I, section 31. Expanding advertising of public contract bidding opportunities in newspapers of general circulation and special trade journals, establishing public contract hotlines, and creating websites to disseminate information to previously nonparticipating subcontractors in order to facilitate the submission of proposals to prime contractors who are contemplating submitting a bid on a project ( all these are permissible means by which a governmental entity may attempt to expand the pool of persons to whom public contracts are awarded. In addition, there are many other strategies that may be implemented by governmental entities that similarly appear to present no danger of running afoul of the precepts embodied in article I, section 31, such as dividing large public contracts into smaller segments in order to facilitate participation by new or more modest enterprises.
Furthermore, a public contracting program that imposes an obligation on a prime contractor to engage in reasonable, good faith outreach to all types of subcontractor enterprises in a community, like the outreach program upheld by this court prior to the adoption of Proposition 209 in Domar Electric, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 9 Cal.4th 161, represents another example of a permissible affirmative action outreach program that does not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment on the basis of race or gender. As the proponents of Proposition 209 made clear in their rebuttal to the argument against the initiative measure: "Proposition 209 bans discrimination and preferential treatment ( period. Affirmative action programs that don't discriminate or grant preferential treatment will be UNCHANGED. Programs designed to ensure that all persons ( regardless of race or gender ( are informed of opportunities and treated with equal dignity and respect will continue as before." (Ballot Pamp., supra, rebuttal to argument against Prop. 209, p. 33, italics added.)
VII.
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the judgment of the Court of Appeal should be affirmed.
GEORGE, C.J.
I CONCUR:
WERDEGAR, J.
Court: Superior
County: Santa Clara
Judge: Richard C. Turrone
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|