Facts

Plaintiffs Sylvia Darensburg, Virginia Martinez, and Vivian Hain, along with organizations whose minority members use the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District bus system, filed suit against Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which plans organization for transit operations in the area.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs alleged that MTC made funding decisions that adversely affected minority riders of AC Transit. Plaintiffs contended that the funding practices diverted funds from preserving and improving existing bus operations to expansion and capital rehabilitation of rail services, disproportionately harming AC Transit's largely minority bus riders. Plaintiffs challenged the policies whereby MTC selected and funded rail expansion through its Regional Transit Expansion Program, allocated committed funds to capital rehabilitation instead of transit operations, and assigned uncommitted funds to offset projected capital rehabilitation shortfalls, but not shortfalls of operating. Plaintiffs contended to meeting the prima facie showing of disparate income, and also had shown equally effective but less discriminatory alternatives.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
MTC contended plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie case and argued it met its burden of showing legitimate justification. MTC further alleged that it did not control most of the committed funds, and the control it did have, it used to allocate them for operations as preventative maintenance to AC Transit. MTC contended that it also had little control over uncommitted funds, and allocated funds to cover operating shortfalls.

MTC claimed that it relied on advice of the Partnership Board, which was made up of federal and regional transit agency representatives, including those from AC Transit, when implementing practices. MTC further contended that plaintiffs had not made a showing an equally effective alternative.

Result

The court rendered a verdict for the defense, finding that plaintiffs failed to prove disparate impact.