Engineering Contractors Ass'n of South Florida, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County
943 F. Supp. 1546 | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1996
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Dade County, Florida had programs that gave preference to minority and women-owned businesses in construction contracts. Trade associations sued, arguing these race and gender-conscious preferences violated equal protection rights. The court agreed and permanently blocked the county from using these preferences in awarding construction work. This means Dade County must award contracts based on merit alone, not on contractor demographics.
Key Takeaways
- •Race, ethnicity, and gender-based contract preferences in government construction work are unconstitutional unless narrowly tailored to remedy specific, documented discrimination
- •Simply having diversity goals is not enough—government must prove actual discrimination occurred before using preference programs
- •Subcontractors cannot be excluded or disadvantaged from county work based on their race, ethnicity, or gender, even under diversity initiatives
Dade County Ordinances 94-94, 94-95, and 94-96 violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Frequently Asked Question
Can a government agency give contract preferences to minority or women-owned construction companies?
Not without proving specific discrimination occurred first. Courts require government to show documented evidence of past discrimination before using race, ethnicity, or gender preferences. The preference program must be narrowly tailored to fix that specific problem. General diversity goals alone are not enough to justify preference programs.
Related Cases
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.
Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. v. Harrison
A general contractor owes a duty of care to a subcontractor's employee for fall protection when it retains actual control over safety measures, and the evidence sufficiently supported findings of negligence and gross negligence.
Rory v. Continental Insurance
Unambiguous contractual limitations periods in insurance policies must be enforced as written unless they violate law or public policy; judicial assessments of reasonableness cannot override clear contract terms.
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
The court reversed the district court's denial of preliminary injunction, finding ATA likely to succeed on FAAA preemption claims because many concession agreement provisions are not genuinely responsive to motor vehicle safety.
Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London
A CGL policy's contractual liability exclusion bars coverage for breach of contract claims when the insured's only liability arises from contractual obligations assumed in the underlying contract, and the insured-contract exception does not restore coverage.
The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority
An insurance policy's additional insured endorsement covering injuries "caused, in whole or in part" by the named insured's acts requires proximate causation, not mere "but for" causation, and does not cover injuries caused solely by the additional insured's negligence.