This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Constitutional Law
Equal Protection
Race and Sex Discrimination

Coral Construction Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco / Schram Construction Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco

Published: Mar. 18, 2017 | Result Date: Jan. 31, 2017 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CPF-01-319549 (lead case); CGC-03-421249 Settlement –  $716,049

Court

San Francisco Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Meriem L. Hubbard
(Pacific Legal Foundation)


Defendant

Rachel J. Sater

Dennis J. Herrera
(San Francisco Public Utilities Commission)

Teresa L. Stricker
(Office of the Richmond City Attorney)

Wayne K. Snodgrass
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)

G. Scott Emblidge
(Moscone Emblidge & Otis LLP)


Facts

Schram Construction Inc. and Coral Construction Inc. brought two separate complaints (later consolidated) against the City and County of San Francisco, and others.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that the City of San Francisco's adoption of an ordinance entitled "Minority/Women/Local Business Utilization Ordinance," which included race- and sex-based preferences in public contracting violated the state constitution. Specifically it violated, article 1, section 31, which prohibited discrimination or preferential treatment based on race, color, ethnicity or national origin with respect to public employment, public education or public contracting.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The City and County of San Francisco denied that the ordinance violated the constitution and asserted various affirmative defenses.

Result

The court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied defendants' motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to the settlement reached between the parties, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission will pay $716,049 to settle its portion of the cost of settling the litigation. Additionally, the City and County of San Francisco will pay plaintiffs' attorney fees in the amount of $1,432,098.


#103235

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390