Albuquerque Valet Parking Serv. v. City of Albuquerque, N.M.-115

FAA Docket No:

16-01-01

Lexis Cite:

2002 FAA LEXIS 84

Westlaw Cite:

2002 WL 321958

Author:

Edwards, Barbara A., Deputy Assistant Administrator for Civil Rights

Author Title:

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Civil Rights

Complainant(s):

Albuquerque Valet Parking Service|Albuquerque Valet Service|Morris, Norma|Powdrell, David

Respondent(s):

Albuquerque (N.M.)

Airport(s):

Albuquerque Sunport International Airport (ABQ)

History:

Affirmed by Final Agency Decision of Aug. 2, 2002. See Determination No. 104.

Holding:

Dismissing complaint.

Abstract:

Complainants valet service provider and its owners filed a complaint against Respondent, City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, sponsor of the Albuquerque Sunport International Airport, alleging that Respondent discriminated against them on the basis of sex (female) and race (African-American) in violation of Grant Assurances 30 and 37 when it did not award a contract to Complainants for the operation of a parking concession at the Airport. Respondent claimed that the bidder offering the highest bid price was entitled to be awarded the concession. The Director found Respondent not in violation of these Grant Assurances and dismissed the Complaint.|Intentional Discrimination/Disparate Treatment Theory of Discrimination:|The FAA used the intentional discrimination/disparate treatment theory of discrimination under Title VI to analyze allegations of discrimination under 49 C.F.R. pt. 26.7(a). (p. 10).|Disparate Impact/Adverse Effects Theory of Discrimination:|The FAA used the disparate impact/adverse effects theory of discrimination under Title VI to analyze allegations of discrimination under 49 C.F.R. pt. 26.7(b). (p. 10).|Burden-Shifting Framework:|For the intentional discrimination claim, FAA applied the burden-shifting framework where the complainant must first raise an inference of discrimination by establishing a prima facie case of discrimination; then burden shifts to respondent to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the complainant's rejection; finally the burden shifts back to the complainant to show that the articulated reason is pretext for discrimination. (pp. 10-11).|Complainants failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the Respondent's non-discriminatory reasons for bidding the concession opportunity and for selecting another concessionaire were a pretext for discrimination where City did not appear to have manipulated the purchasing procedures, City had no known history of discriminatory or segregated conduct within FAA’s jurisdiction, and statistical evidence provided by Complainants failed to show discrimination on the part of the City. Therefore, the Complainants failed to show that the City violated 49 C.F.R. pt. 26.7(a). (pp. 13-14).|Disproportionate Impact:|Complainant concessionaire failed to establish that the Respondent utilized a facially neutral practice that had a disproportionate impact on females or African-Americans in violation of 49 C.F.R. pt. 26.7 where Complainants admitted that they were in negotiation with the Respondent for a valet parking concession when the Respondent advertised a Request for Bid for the concession, Respondent selected another bidder with a higher revenue offer, Complainants provided factual data but no statistics or evidence that would allow for a comparison to identify a disparate effect, and U.S. Census data did not suggest disparate impacts. (p. 16).

Index Terms:

Albuquerque Valet Parking Serv. v. City of Albuquerque, N.M. -- No. 16-01-01 -- No. FAA-2003-16103