White couple sues the city of Houston for minority contract quota
The city said the initiative guarantees historically marginalized individuals can acquire lucrative government contracts and promotes a more competitive economic climate.
A married white couple in Houston has filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the city’s mandate that a specific percentage of government contracts go to minority-owned firms is unconstitutional.
Reuters reported that Jerry and Theresa Thompson filed the complaint in federal court Tuesday, claiming that one of their two landscaping businesses has a $1.3 million, five-year contract with the city but is obligated to subcontract 11% of the entire amount — or $143,000 — to a minority-owned company under the Houston program.
The city establishes yearly quantitative targets for giving minority-owned firms several contracts. According to its officials, minority-owned enterprises received around 24% of professional service contracts and roughly 14 percent of construction contracts between July 2021 and June 2022.
Houston says the four-decade-old initiative guarantees historically marginalized individuals can engage in lucrative government procurement and promotes a more competitive economic climate.
However, the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, representing the Thompsons, asserted that racial set-asides contribute to the myth that particular racial groups cannot flourish without government assistance.
The Thompson case is the most recent to contest affirmative action measures since the U.S. Supreme Court voted in June to overturn racial admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.
Even though the Supreme Court’s decision in June only directly affects higher education, legal challenges to several government programs and business workforce diversity initiatives are anticipated to gain momentum.
In July, a federal judge in Tennessee cited the decision after ruling that the U.S. Small Business Administration could not assume that minority business owners were “socially disadvantaged,” allowing them to compete for specific government contracts without requiring them to present any evidence beyond their race.
Edward Blum, the driving force behind the Supreme Court’s decision, has spearheaded at least three lawsuits as part of a broader campaign to use Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to undermine diversity initiatives in the private sector.
The Thompsons’ lawsuit accuses Houston of neglecting to clarify how its contracting program addresses historical prejudice, a justification that, according to the Supreme Court, could make affirmative action plans illegal.
TheGrio is FREE on your TV via Apple TV, Amazon Fire, Roku and Android TV. Also, please download theGrio mobile apps today!
