UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C . J& B ENTERPRISES , INC . d/b/a . RHYTH M SHINE , 

### PAR T 1 6 DOCKET S Complainant , METROPOLITA N NASHVILL E AIRPOR T AUTHORITY , FA A Docke t No . 16-08-0 7

Respondent . - r\ " ^ — I

RESPONDEN T METROPOLITA N NASHVILL E AIRPOR T AUTHORITY' S REPL Y T O COMPLAINANT' S APPEA L O FTH E DIRECTOR' S DETERMINATIO N vi: ?

Robert Watso n Metropolita n Nashvill e Airport Authorit y On e Termina l Drive , Suit e 50 1 Nashville , TN 3721 4 Telephone : (615 ) 275-163 7 Facsimile : (615)275-430 2 Arthu r P . Ber g KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWEL L LL P 64 1 Lexingto n Ave . Suit e 140 9 Ne w York , N Y 1002 2 Telephone : (212 ) 328-951 5 Facsimile : (646 ) 514-544 0 Thoma s Devin e KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWEL L LL P 100 1 Connecticu t

Av e NW , Suit e 80 0 Washington , D C 2003 6 Telephone : (202 ) 955-5600X56 8 Facsimile : (202 ) 955-561 6 Lis aReynold s KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWEL L LL P 167 5 Broadway , Suit e 230 0 Denver , C O 8020 2 Telephone : (303 ) 825-700 0 Facsimile : (303 ) 825-700 5TABL E O FCONTENT S

TABL E O FAUTHORITIE S ii i I . INTRODUCTIO N AN D SUMMAR Y O FFACT S 1 A . SUMMAR Y O FFACT S 2 B . STANDAR D O FREVIE W7 I L RETALIATIO N 8 A . TH E ASSISTAN T ADMINISTRATO RSHOUL D STRIKE TH E RETALIATIO N ISSU E BECAUS E I T WA S NO T RAISE D BELO W9 B . J& B HA S NO T ESTABLISHE D A PRIM A FACI E CAS E O FRETALIATIO N 1 0 (i ) J& B DI D NO T ENGAG E IN A PROTECTE D ACTIVIT Y 1 1 (ii ) MNA A DI D NO T TAK E A MATERIALL Y ADVERS E ACTIO N AGAINS T J& B 1 2 (iii ) MNA A HA D LEGITIMATE , NON-DISCRIMINATOR Y REASON S FO RNO T RENEWIN G J&B' S CONTRAC T AN D ISSUIN GA N RF P FO RTH E SHO E SHIN E CONCESSIO N 1 5 III . TH E AMS-OLYMPI C SUPPL Y JOIN T VENTUR E 1 7 A . TH E ASSISTAN T ADMINISTRATO RSHOUL D STRIKE THI S ISSU E BECAUS E I T WA S NO T RAISE D BELO W1 7 B . J& B LACK S STANDIN G T O CHALLENG E TH E STRUCTUR E O FTH E JOIN T VENTUR E 1 9 C . THER E I S N O EVIDENC E I N TH E RECOR D T O SUPPOR T TH E CLAI M THA T OLYMPI C DOE S NO T SUFFICIENTL Y PARTICIPAT E I N TH E OWNERSHI P AN D CONTRO L O FTH E JOIN T VENTUR E 2 0IV. DISPARAT E IMPAC T 2 1

A . BOT H AFRICAN-AMERICA N AN D NON-AFRICAN-AMERICA N OWNE D BUSINESSE S WER E MAD E SUBTENANT S I N TH E CONCESSION S MASTE RPLAN 2 1 B . J& B DI D NO T SUBMI T AN Y FACTUA L O RSTATISTICA L EVIDENC E ESTABLISHIN G DISPARAT E IMPAC T 2 3 C . TH E DIRECTO RCORRECTL Y FOUN D THA T MNA A PROVIDE D SUBSTANTIA L JUSTIFICATIO N FO RIT S ACTION S 2 4 V . INTENTIONA LDISCRIMINATIO N (DISPARAT E TREATMENT ) 2 5 VI . GENERA LCOMPLL\NC E WIT H PART S 2 3 AN D 2 6 AN D GRAN T ASSURANCE S 2 8 A . TH E RECOR D SUPPORT S TH E DIRECTOR' S FINDIN G THA T MNA A MAD E EXTRAORDINAR Y EFFORT S T O ACCOMMODAT E J&B' S CONCERN S 2 9 VII. CONCLUSIO N 3 0

n

### TABLE OFAUTHORITIE S

Case s Adventure Aviatio n v . Cit y o f La s Cruce s FAA Docke t

No . 16-01-14 , 200 3 WL 2269692 3 a t *1 6 (Final Decisio n an dOrder , Sept . 9 , 2003 ) 11 , 23 , 2 4 Albuquerqu e Vale

t Parkin g Serv . v . Cit

y o f Albuquerqu e FA A Docke t

No . 16-01-01 , 200 2 W L 3442913 4 a t 8 (Final Agenc y Decisio n an dOrder , Aug . 2 , 2002 ) 18 , 26 , 3 0 Bosto n Ai r

Charte r v . NorwoodAirpor t

Com m' n FA A Docke t

No . 16-07-03 , 200 8 W L 418603 4 a t *2 0 (Final Decisio n an dOrder , Aug . 14 , 2008 ) 1 0 Burlingto n N . & Sant aF e v . Whit e 54 8 U.S . 53 , 6 8 (2006 ) 1 4 Consolidate dServ . Engineer s & Constructors , Inc . v . Cit y o f Pal mSprin g FA A Docke t

No . 16-03-05 , 200 4 W L 319820 4 a t *4 4 (Director' s Determination , Jun e 10 , 2004 ) 1 9 Flaming o Express , Inc . v . Cit y o f Cincinnat i FAA Docke t

No . 16-06-04 , 200 7 W L239986 1 a t *1 2 (Final Decisio n an dOrder , Aug. 9 , 2007 ) 20 , 2 3 Gerar dv . Boar do f

Regent s 200 9 WL110152 4 (11t

h Cir . 2009 ) 1 3 J& B Enterprises , Inc . v . Metro . Nashvill e Airpor t Auth . FAA Docke t

No . 16-08-07 , 200 9 WL 180082 1 a t 5- 6 (Director' s Determinatio n Ma y 5 , 2009 ) passi m Jimsai r Aviatio n Serv. , Inc . v . Sa n Dieg o Count

y Reg' I Airport

Auth . FAA Docke t

No . 16-06-08 , 200 7 W L239986 2 a t * 7 (Final Agenc y Decision , Aug . 9 , 2007 ) 7 McDonnel l Dougla s v . Gree n 41 1 U. S 79 2 (1973 ) 30,3 1 Richar dE . Steerev . Count y o f Sa n Dieg o FA A Docke t

No . 16-99-15 , 200 4 W L 319820 9 a t *9 , *16 , *21 , *2 2 (Final Decisio n an dOrde r Dec . 7 , 2004 ) 2 9 Roadhous e Aviation , LL C v . Cit y o f Tuls a FAA Docke t

No . 16-05-08 , 200 7 W L 196616 0 a t * 9 (Final Decisio n an dOrder , Jun e 26 , 2007 ) 9 , 10 , 2 0 Robert s v . Davies s County , Indian aBd . o f Aviatio n Com

m'r s FAA Docke t

No . 16-00-06 , 200 1 W L168327 3 a t *1 0 (Final Decisio n an dOrder , Dec . 13 , 2001 ) 1 1 Roger s v . Metro . Washingto n Airpor t Auth . FA A Docke t

No . 13-93-2 8 a

t 8 (Order , Ma y 31 , 2000 ) 1 7 Peter s v . Jenne y 32 7 F.3 d307 , 32 0 (4" " Cir . 2003 ) 1 2 Sun 's , Inc . v . Por t

o f Seattl e FAA Docke t

No . 16-06-13 , 200 8 W L 595535 2 a t *2 1

n i(Director' s Determination , Nov . 14 , 2008 ) 3 5

Thermc o Aviatio n Inc . v . Count y o f Lo s Angele s FA A Docke t

No . 16-06-0 7 (Final Agenc y Decision , Dec . 17 , 2007 ) 2 2 Waller v . WichitaAirpor t

Auth . FA A Docke t

No . 16-98-13 , 199 9 W L 50002 8 a t * 4 (Director' s Determination , Mar . 12 , 1999 ) 1 0 Waller v . WichitaAirpor t

Authority , e t

al . FA A Docke t

No . 16-98-1 3 a

t * 4 (Director' s Determination , Marc h 12,1999 ) 1 3 Othe rAuthoritie s U.S . Departmen t

o f Justic e Titl e V I Lega l Manual , a t VIII. A (Jan . 1 , 2001 ) 12 , 3 0 Regulation s 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.29(b)(1 ) 8 , 11 , 2 3 4 9 C.F.R.§ § 16.23(a) , (b)(4 ) 2 1 49C.F.R . §23. 1 1 7 4 9 C.F.R . § 23.7 5 1 8 4 9 C.F.R . § 26.7(a ) 2 9 4 9 C.F.R . § 26.7(b ) 2 6 4 9 C.F.R . Part

2 3 2 4 9 C.F.R . Part

2 3 an dPart

2 6 1 , 3 , 9 , 3 5 4 9 CF R26.109(d ) 1 3

I VI . INTRODUCTIO N AN D SUMMAR Y O FFACT S

Responden t

Metropolita n Nashvill e Airport Authorit y hereb y files it s Repl y t o Complainan t

J& B Enterprises , Inc . (J&B)' s Appea l o f th e Director' s Determination . MNA A respectfull y request s that

th e Assistan t

Administrato r

(1 ) den y J&B' s appeal ; (2 ) hol dtha t th e Director' s findings o f

fac t ar e supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliabl e evidence , an dthat hi s conclusion s o f

law wer e mad e i n accordanc e with applicabl e law , precedent , an dpubli c policy ; an d(3 ) affir

mth e dismissa l o f

J&B' s Complaint . O n Jul y 30 , 2008 , J& B filed aPart 1 6 complain t

agains t th e Authority allegin g violation s o f 4 9 C.F.R . Part

2 3 an dPart

26 . Pursuan t

t o a n extensio n o f

tim e grante db y FAA , MNA A filed an Answe r

an dMotion t o Dismis s o n Novembe r 3 , 2008 . J& B di dnot

file aReply . O n Ma y 5 , 2009 , th e Directo r

grante dMNAA' s Motio n t o Dismis s J&B' s complaint . O n Jun e 3 , 2009 , J& B sough t a n extensio n o f

tim e t o file an appea l o f

th e Director' s Determination . O n Jun e 15th , 2009 , th e FA A extende dJ&B' s time t o appea l t o Jul y 8 , 2009 . O n Jul y 8 , 2009 , J& B filedit s appeal togethe r with aMotio n t o Supplemen t th e Record . O n Jul y 16th , 2009 , MNA A filedit s Oppositio n t o J&B' s Motio n t o Supplemen t th e Recor dan d als o filed aMotio n t o Strike Ne w Issue s Raise dfo r th e Firs t Tim e o n Appeal . MNA A als o move dfor

a n extensio n o f

tim e t o file it s Repl y t o th e Appea l unti l after th e Assistan t Administrato r

ha drule do n th e Motion t o Supplemen t th e Recor dan dth e Motion t o Strike New Issue s Raise do n Appeal . O n Jul y 27 , 2009 , J& B filed aRepl y o n Motion t o Supplemen t an dOppositio n t o Respondent' s Motio n t o Strik e New Issue s o n Appeal . O n Jul y 31 , 2009 , MNA A filed aMotion t o Strike J&B' s Unauthorize dReply . J& B ha s no t filedan y Oppositio n t o MNAA' s Motio n t o Stiik e J&B' s Reply .B y Order s issue dJul y 2 4 an dAugus t 5 , 2009 , th e FA A state dtha t J&B' s Motion t o Supplemen t

th e Recor dan dMNAA' s Motion t o Strike New Issue s Raise do n Appeal woul d likel y b e decide da s part

o f th e Appea l an dgrante dMNA A a n extensio n o f

time unti l Septembe r 2 , 2009 , t o file it s Repl y t o th e Appea l MNA A renew s it s reques t tha t th e Assistan t

Administrato r

den y J&B' s motio n t o supplemen t

th e recor dan dgran t

MNAA' s motio n t o strik e th e tw o ne w issue s raise dfor th e first tim e o n appeal : J&B' s retaliatio n clai man dit s clai mtha t th e join t ventur e betwee n Olympi c Suppl y an dHudso n Grou p doe s not mee t FAA' s allocatio n o f

wor k requirement s for

join t venture s involvin g ACDBEs. ' A . Summar y o f

Fact s Thi s Part 1 6 Proceedin g involve s aclai mb y J&B , a n Afiican-America n ACDB E concessionair e at

Nashvill e Internationa l Airport , tha t th e Authorit y violate dPart s 2 3 an d2 6 o f th e FA A regulation s i n th e managemen t o f it s ACDB E progra man db y discriminatin g agains t J& B o n th e basi s o f

race . In hi s Ma y 5 , 200 9 Determination , th e Directo r rejecte dal l o f

J&B' s claim s o f discriminatory conduct . Specifically , th e Directo r foun dthat : (1 ) MNA A complie di n goo dfait h with 4 9 C.F.R . Part

2 3 i n awardin g th e Hudso n Grou p th e maste r concessio n contracts ; (2 ) MNAA' s administratio n o f it s ne w shoeshin e concessio n leasin g polic y an d procedur e di dno t

hav e adisparat e impac t

o n Afiican-America n ACDBEs ; (3 ) MNA A di dno t discriminat e agains t

J& B o n th e basi s o f

th e rac e o f

it s owners ; an d(4 ) MNA A complie dwith

' I n it s Complaint , J& B di dnot alleg e retaliatio n an dwith regar dt o th e AMS-Olympi c Suppl y Join t Ventur e i t

mistakenl y allege dtha t

Olympi c i s not

acertifie dACDB E i n Tennesse e an dtha t for ACDB E credit , th e law require s th e ACDB E participan t t o hav e a51 % ownershi p o f th e Join t Venture . Complain t

a t 2 . Nowher e di dth e Complain t allege , a s claime do n Appeal , that th e allocatio n o f

wor k an dresponsibilitie s betwee n th e join t ventur e partner s wa s improper . Se e MNAA' s Oppositio n t o Supplemen t th e Recor do n Appea l an dMotion t o Strike New Issue s Raise dfo r th e Firs t Tim e o n Appeal .th e administrative , genera l an dcomplianc e requirement s o f 4 9 C.F.R . Part s 2 3 an d2 6 an dGran t Assurance s No . 3 0 an dNo . 37 . Althoug h bot h MNAA' s Memorandu mo f Point s an dAuthoritie s i n Support o f It s Answe r an dMotio n t o Dismis s an dth e Director' s Determinatio n contai n thoroug h discussion s o f th e facts , w e wil l briefl y sunmiariz e th e fact s her e a s the y pertai n t o J&B' s Appeal . I n 2004 , MNA A adopte dane w Concession s Maste r Pla n a s part

o f th e Authority' s long

termstrategi c busines s plan . Th e ne w maste r pla n calle dfor

tw o maste r

concessionaire s for

foo d an dbeverag e service s an don e for news , gifts , an dspecialty retai l concessions . Director' s Determination , Inde x o f

Administrativ e Recor d("D D Index") , Ite m10 , Ex . 2 a t viii . In addition , th e maste r

pla n contemplate dseparate , direc t lease s with certai n servic e provider s suc h a s anai l salon , massag e bar , an dvide o gam e rooms . Id . a t IX-6 . It als o provide dtha t

asho e shin e concessio n woul db e locate dinsid e th e new s store s an dwoul db e asubtenan t o f th e news , gifts , an dspecialty retai l maste r concessionaire . Id . a

t VII-12 . A t

th e time , th e sho e shin e concessio n was (an di s currently ) hel db y Complainan t J& B Enterprises , Inc. , acertifie dACDB E owne db y Jame s an dBetty Druett . J& B ha s bee n operatin g a t th e airport

unde r adirec t leas e sinc e 1992 .

^ Thi s summary draw s upo n materia l i n th e Recor do n Appea l an dupo n th e Affidavi t o f Rebecc a Ramse y i n Support

o f Responden t

MNAA' s Repl y t o Appea l ("Secon dAffidavi t o f R . Ramsey") , submitte dwith MNAA' s Motion t o Supplemen t th e Record , bot h o f

whic h wer e filed togethe r with thi s Repl y o n Septembe r 2 , 2009 . ^ Th e origina l contrac t

with J& B ra n fi-omSeptembe r 1 , 199 2 for

athree-year

period , after whic h i t becam e ayear-to-year

contract , renewabl e a

t th e Authority' s sol e discretio n "unti l suc h tim e [as ] th e Authorit y implement s it s Lon g Rang e Commercia l Strategi c Plan. " Se e D D Index , ItemlO , Ex . 8 .MNA A receive dbid s firomthre e proposer s seekin g t o ac t a s maste r

concessionaire s for news , gift , an dspecialt y retai l (NG&S) , tw o o f whic h include dJ& B a s th e sho e shin e subtenant . D D Index , Ite m6 f

11 . Both NG& S contract s wer e awarde dt o Hudso n Group , whic h propose d t o manag e th e new s an dgif t concession s throug h ajoin t ventur e wit h acertifie dAfiican

America n ACDBE , Olympi c Supply . D D Index , Ite m1 0 at 11 . Upo n implementatio n o f

th e first phas e o f th e concessio n maste r

plan , on e o f

J&B' s sho e shin e stand s was move dfromit s locatio n i n th e B Concours e t o ane w locatio n insid e aHudso n CN N New s Store . Id . at

12 . Althoug h J&B' s owner s understoo dwhe n the y agree dt o b e part o f Hudson' s bi dthat

the y woul db e locate dinsid e th e new s store , J& B was unhapp y wit h it s ne w location , an dha dmultipl e disagreement s with Hudso n Grou p abou t th e desig n an dlocatio n o f th e sho e shin e stand . D D Index , Ite m6^6 . J& B mad e it s concern s know n t o MNAA , whic h too k actio n t o resolv e th e dispute s with Hudso n an dt o ensur e that J& B ha daviabl e locatio n fromwhic ht o operate . D D Index , Ite m1 0 a t 12-16 ; J& B Enterprises , Inc . v . Metro . Nashvill e Airpor t Auth. , FA A Docke t

No . 16-08-07 , 200 9 W L180082 1 at 5- 6 (Director' s Determinatio n Ma y 5 , 2009 ) [hereinafte r DD] . J& B continue dt o b e unhapp y with it s situation , however , and refiise dt o sig n asubleas e with Hudson . D D Index , Ite m1 0 at 12-16 . I n a

n attemp t t o accommodat e J& B an dkee p i t operatin g a

t th e airport , MNA A agree dt o tak e th e sho e shin e concessio n ou t

o f th e maste r

concessionaire' s leas e an dutiliz e adirec t leas e betwee n J& B an d MNAA. ^ D D a

t 7 ; D D Index , Ite m7 TI17 . Month s passed , however , withou t agreemen t betwee n MNA A an dJ& B o n anew , direc t lease .

' * A s explaine di n MNAA' s Answer , ther e wer e tw o RFP s for New s Gif

t & Specialty Retai l maste r concessionaires . Hudso n wa s awarde dbot h o f them . ^ A t thi s time, onl y th e B concours e sho e shin e locatio n ha dbee n relocate dwithi n anew s store . C Concours e ha dnot

ye t begu n construction , an dJ& B wa s stil l operatin g it s secon dsho e shin e stan dfromit s origina l C Concours e location .I n Apri l 2008 , MNA A receive dalette r fromJ&B' s coimse l allegin g MNA A was i n violatio n o f

it s ACDB E progra man dseekin g ameetin g withi n 3 0 day s t o attemp t t o resolv e th e problem s betwee n th e parties . D D Index , Ite m10 , Ex . 29 . Ove r th e nex t month an dahalf

, MNA A attempte dwithou t succes s t o se t

u p ameetin g with J& B an dit s attorney . D D Index , Ite m10 , Ex . 30 ; se e als o Ite m7 TI23 . Ultimatel y MNA A abandone dit s eight-month-lon g effor t t o reac hagreemen t

with J& B o n ane w direc t leas e an ddecide dinstea dt o pu t th e sho e shin e concessio n ou t

for bid , settin g fort

h th e term s o f

th e direc t

leas e i n th e RFP . D D Index , Ite m10 , Ex . 30 . Upo n informin g J& B tha t i t woul db e puttin g th e sho e shin e concessio n ou t for bid , an d encouragin g th e J& B t o bi do n th e RFP , MNA A als o informe dJ& B that i t woul dnot

b e renewin g th e year-to-year leas e imde r

whic h J& B wa s the n operating . Id . Instead , MNA A requeste dthat

J& B continu e t o operat e at th e airport

o n amonth-to-mont h basi s whe n it s curren t leas e expired , an dd o s o unti l th e conclusio n o f th e RF P process . Id . Despit e outreac h an dencouragemen t fromMNAA , J& B di dno t submi t abi do n eithe r th e first o r secon dsho e shin e concessio n RFP . Affidavi t o f Rebecc aRamse y i n Support o f Responden t

MNAA' s Repl y t o Appea l ("Secon dAffidavi t o f R . Ramsey") , submitte dwith MNAA' s Motio n t o Supplemen t th e Recor d^ 6 , 12 . Th e first tim e th e RF P was issued , MNA A receive dtw o responses , neithe r o f whic h wa s deeme dresponsiv e t o th e RFP . Id.'^S . MNAA' s Properties Manager , Rebecc aRamsey , telephone dal l o f th e concessionaire s wh o attende dth e pre-bi dmeetin g wh o ha dno t bid , includin g J&B , t o findou t wh y the y ha dno t

bid . Id . ^ 7 . Mr . Druett gav e Ms . Ramse y anumbe r o f reason s fo r

not bidding , an dMs . Ramse y explaine dthat th e Authority woul dissu e asecon dRF P for th e sho e shin e concession , an dthat J& B woul dno t b e abl e t o continu e operatin g a t th e Airpor t

i f i t di dnot submi t abid . Id . ^ 8 , 9 .Subsequently , whe n MNA A issue dth e secon dRFP , i t receive don e bid , from awoman owne dACDBE , Goodfellow s Shoeshine . Again , J& B di dnot submi t abid . Id . TI

^ 12 , 13 . Th e Goodfellow s bi dpropose dt o pa y MNA A aminimu mo f $12,96 0 pe r

year , whic h i s approximatel y $2,60 0 mor e tha n th e RF P specifie da s aminimu man dapproximatel y $5,40 0 mor e tha n J&B' s minimu mguarante e unde r it s year-to-year

leas e with MNAA . Id . THI16 , 18 . MNA A staf

f i s reconunendin g t o it s Boar dtha t th e Boar daccep t

th e Goodfellow s proposal . Id.^\5 . I f

i t i s accepted , Goodfellow s ha s projecte dtha t th e airport

wil l receiv e i n exces s o f $38,00 0 annuall y i n ren t fromth e ne w concessio n agreement , partl y a s aresul t o f Goodfellows ' plan s t o sel l men' s fravel relate dmerchandis e i n additio n t o offerin g shoeshin e services . Id . 1119 . Shoul dth e Boar daccep t Goodfellows ' proposal , J&B' s month-to-month leas e wil l no t

b e renewe dan dJ& B wil l n o longe r hav e th e righ t

t o operat e asho e shin e concessio n a

t th e airport . After MNA A ha dannounce dtha t i t wa s goin g t o put

th e sho e shin e concessio n ou t for bid , J& B filedit s Part

1 6 complain t

wit h th e FAA , allegin g that MNA A discriminate dagains t i t o n th e basi s o f

rac e i n violatio n o f

Part s 2 3 an d26 . Upo n revie w o f th e recor dan dth e applicabl e law , th e Directo r

fovm dtha t J& B ha dfaile dt o mak e ou t aprim afaci e cas e for

intentiona l discrimination/disparat e treatmen t o r disparat e impac t

discrimination . D D at

22 , 27 . I n addition , t o th e exten t

that an y o f MNAA' s decision s ha dimpacte dJ& B unfavorably , th e Directo r foun d tha t MNA A ha dbee n "full y responsive " i n resolvin g "al l issue s raise db y [J&B], " an dthat MNA A "attempte dt o d o everythin g i t believe di t

coul dt o facilitat e Complainant' s ful l participatio n i n th e ACDB E program. " Id . a t 32 . J& B appeale dth e Director' s Determination , allegin g tha t th e Directo r

ha dmisrea dth e fact s i n th e recor dan derroneousl y faile dt o decid e th e issu e o f retaliatio n an dwhethe r

th e join tventtar

e betwee n Olympi c Suppl y an dHudso n Grou p complie s with FAA' s actual participatio n requirement s for

ACDBE s wh o ar e partner s i n join t ventures ; thos e issues , however , wer e not raise di n th e Complaint . J& B als o sough t t o supplemen t

th e recor dwith material s that wer e availabl e befor e th e Directo r issue dhi s determinatio n an dwhic h provide d(a ) unsubstantiate d an duntimel y argumen t

fromJ& B that

ha dalread y bee n rejecte db y th e Directo r whe n first proffered , D D at

9 n.58 , o r

(b ) irrelevan t

informatio n abou t

adifferen t

busines s entity operatin g a t adifferen t

airport . B . Standar do f

Revie w Unde r th e prope r

standar do f

revie w for

aPart 1 6 appeal , th e Assistan t

Administrato r mus t determin e (a ) whethe r

th e Director' s findings o f fac t ar e supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidence , an d(b ) whethe r eac h conclusio n o f

law i s mad e i n accordanc e wit h applicabl e law , precedent , an dpubli c policy. " See , e.g. , Jimsai r Aviatio n Serv. , Inc . V . Sa n Dieg o County Reg' l Airpor t Auth. , FA A Docke t

No . 16-06-08 , 200 7 W L239986 2 a t * 7 (Final Agenc y Decision , Aug . 9 , 2007) . MNA A submitte dsubstantia l evidenc e int o th e recor dconstitutin g apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an dsubstantial evidenc e supportin g th e Director' s findings o f fact . I n addition , th e Director' s conclusion s o f la w ar e i n accor dwith applicabl e law , preceden t an d publi c policy . I n contrast , J&B' s Appea l i s no t supporte db y applicabl e law an dprecedent ; i n fact , i t make s remarkabl y few reference s t o applicabl e la w o r precedent . Instead , i t

accuse s th e Directo r o f (a ) not addressin g certai n issue s whic h wer e no t raise db y J& B i n it s Complaint , an d(b ) failin g t o conduc t

a n investigatio n t o uncove r evidenc e t o support

J&B' s allegation s - but

th e Directo r i s unde r n o obligatio n t o mak e u p for J&B' s utte r

failure t o provid e fact s an dstatistic snecessar y t o prov e it s allegations . Instead , th e Directo r i s entitle dt o rel y o n th e argumen t an d evidenc e supplie db y th e partie s i n reachin g hi s Determination . 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.29(b)(1) . II . RETALIATIO N In it s appeal , J& B argue s that th e Directo r

erre dbecaus e h e "faile dt o recognize " that MNA A intentionall y discriminate db y "retaliating " agains t J& B for "makin g acomplaint " that MNA A ha dviolate dACDB E regulations . J& B Appeal o f Director' s Determinatio n ("Appeal") a t 2 . Thi s argumen t

fail s for anumbe r

o f separat e an dindependen t reasons . First , i t

i s improperl y raise do n appeal ; i t wa s not raise dbelow , an dther e i s n o Director' s Determinatio n o n th e issu e for

th e Assistan t

Administrato r

t o review . Second , th e fact s i n th e recor dd o not support S Lprim afaci e cas e for

retaliation . Finally , th e allege dretaliator y ac t - issuin g aReques t for Proposal s (RFP ) fo r

th e shoeshin e concessio n - i s consisten t with FA A polic y regardin g th e administratio n o f

airport concessio n contracts , an dwoul dhav e bee n areasonabl e correctiv e actio n pla n for

th e Authorit y t o propose , i f th e Directo r

ha dfoun dtha t

MNA A ha dviolate d4 9 C.F.R . Part s 2 3 o r

26 . Indeed , J& B o n appeal say s i t i s not "claimin g arigh t

t o perpetua l operatio n o f

aconcession " bu t

seek s "onl y th e opportunity t o operat e th e concessio n i t ha s sinc e 1992. " (Appeal at

23 ) Th e RFP s issue db y th e Authority gav e J& B th e "opportunit y t o operat e th e [sho e shine ] concession " a t th e airport , but

althoug h encourage db y MNA A t o d o so , J& B chos e no t t o participat e i n th e RF P process . Consequently , th e Assistan t Administrato r

shoul dstrik e th e issu e o f retaliatio n a s improperl y raise dfor

th e first tim e o n appeal or , i n th e alternative , dismis s th e retaliatio n clai m o n th e merits .A . Th e Assistan t Administrato r

Shoul dStrik e th e Retaliatio n Issu e Becaus e I t Wa s No t Raise dBelo w J& B improperl y raise s th e allegatio n o f "retaliation " fo r

th e first tim e o n appeal , an dthis , i n an do f itself , i s sufficien t

reaso n for

th e Assistan t

Administrato r

t o strik e i t

fromth e appeal . I

t i s wel l establishe dtha t

ne w issue s ma y not

b e raise dfor

th e first tim e o n appeal i n aPart

1 6 proceeding . Roadhous e Aviation , LL C v . Cit y o f Tulsa , FA A Docke t

No . 16-05-08 , 200 7 W L 196616 0 a t * 9 (Final Decisio n an dOrder , Jun e 26 , 2007) ; se e als o MNAA' s Oppositio n t o Complainant' s Motion t o Supplemen t th e Recor dO n Appea l an dMotio n t o Strik e New Issue s Raise dO n Appeal ("MNA A Motio n t o Stiike" ) (file dJul y 16 , 2009) . Revie w b y th e Assistan t Administrato r

"i s limite dt o a

n examinatio n o f

th e Director' s Determinatio n an dth e Recor dupo n whic h suc hdeterminatio n was based. " Bosto n Ai r Charte r v . Norwoo dAirpor t

Com m'n , FA A Docke t No . 16-07-03 , 200 8 W L 418603 4 a t *2 0 (Final Decisio n an dOrder , Aug . 14 , 2008) . In addition , whe n allegin g retaliatio n i n aPart 1 6 proceeding , acomplainan t mus t stat e specificall y i n th e Complain t ho w th e allege dac t

o f retaliatio n interfere dwith arigh t o r privileg e secure db y Par

t 23 , an dmus t

stat e th e "specifi c provisions(s ) o f th e regulatio n h e feel s wer e violated. " Waller

v . WichitaAirpor t

Auth. , FA A Docke t

No . 16-98-13 , 199 9 W L50002 8 a t * 4 (Director' s Determination , Mar . 12 , 1999) . Here , J&B' s Complain t di dnot (1 ) specificall y mentio n "retaliation, " (2 ) demonsfrat e tha t MNA A interfere dwith arigh t o r privileg e secure db y Part 23 , o r (3 ) cit e specifi c provision s o f th e regulation s whic h wer e allegedly violated . Consequently , th e allegatio n o f retaliatio n ma y no t

b e reviewe do n appeal : "[fjailur e t o rais e al l issue s an dallegation s i n th e origina l complain t document s ma y b e caus e for suc h issue s an d allegation s t o b e deeme dwaive dan dnot reviewabl e upo n appeal. " Roadhous e Aviation , LL C v . Cit y o f Tulsa , FAA Docke t

No . 16-05-08 , 200 7 W L 196616 0 at * 9 (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder , Jun e 26 , 2007) .No r

can th e Directo r

b e faulte dfor

not independentl y investigatin g a n issu e whic h J& B di dnot rais e i n it s Complaint . Part 1 6 specificall y provide s tha t i n renderin g th e Director' s Determinatio n "th e FA A ma y rel y entirel y o n th e complain t an dth e responsiv e pleading s provide dunde r

thi s subpart. " 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.29(b)(1) ; se e als o Adventur e Aviatio n v . Cit y o f La s Cruces , FA A Docke t

No . 16-01-14 , 200 3 W L2269692 3 at *1 6 (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder , Sept . 9 , 2003) . I n similar

circumstances , th e FA A ha s hel dtha t "th e Directo r

coul dno t

hav e erre di n failin g t o addres s a

n issu e that

wa s no t raise do r argue di n th e initia l Complain t o r Reply " an d "th e Associat e Adminisfrato r wil l not decid e thi s issu e o n Appeal. " Robert s v . Davies s County , Indian aBd . o f

Aviatio n Comm'rs , FA A Docke t No . 16-00-06 , 200 1 W L168327 3 a t *1 0 (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder , Dec . 13 , 2001 ) (citation s omitted) . Th e Directo r canno t b e faulte dfor

no t "recognizing " a

n argumen t

that wa s no t presente dt o him . Accordingly , J&B' s "retaliation " clai mshoul db e rejecte db y th e Assistan t Administrator , a s improperl y raise dfor

th e first tim e o n appeal . B . J& B Ha s No t

Establishe dA Prim aFaci e Cas e o f Retaliation . Eve n i f i t i s assumed , contrar y t o law , tha t J& B properl y raise dth e issu e o f "retaliation, " it s clai mmus t

b e dismisse dbecaus e J& B faile dt o establis h d i prim afaci e case . T o establis h d

i prim afaci e cas e o f

retaliation , acomplainan t mus t sho w (1 ) tha t

h e engage di n aprotecte dactivity , (2 ) tha t th e airport

sponso r kne w o f th e complainant' s protecte d activity , (3 ) that

th e sponso r

too k som e sort

o f advers e actio n agains t

th e complainant , an d(4 ) that ther e was acausal connectio n betwee n th e complainant' s protecte dactivit y an dth e recipient' s advers e actions . Departmen t o f Justic e Titl e V I Lega l Manua l a t 65 ; se e als o Peter s v . Jenney , 32 1 F.3 d307 , 32 0 (4 * Cir . 2003) . Th e recor dher e doe s not sho w eithe r

that J& B engage di n aprotecte dactivity (th e first require delement ) o r

that th e sponso r

too k advers e actio n

1 0agains t

i t (th e thir drequire delement) . I t follow s tha t

J& B ha s als o faile dt o establis h th e secon d an dfourt h require delements . That is , havin g faile dt o establis h that J& B engage di n a"protecte d activity, " i t

canno t sho w tha t

th e Authority kne w o f

th e (nonexistent ) protecte dactivity . An d havin g faile dt o establis h tha t i t engage di n a"protecte dactivity " an dthat th e Authorit y too k "advers e action " agains t

it , J& B obviousl y can no t demonstrat e ther e wa s acausa l connectio n betwee n th e tw o non-existen t actions . (i ) J& B di dnot

engag e i n aprotecte dactivity . I n th e contex t

o f aretaliatio n clai munde r Titi e VI , FA A regulation s defin e "protecte d activity " a s follows : "[A n airport sponsor ] mus t

no t intimidate , threaten , coerce , o r discriminat e agains t an y individua l o r

firmfor th e purpos e o f

interferin g wit h an y righ t o r privileg e secure d b y thi s part

o r becaus e th e individua l o r firmha s mad e acomplaint , testified , assisted , o r participate di n an y manne r i n an investigation , proceeding , o r hearin g unde r

thi s part. " 4 9 CF R 26.109(d) . Thus , th e retaliator y ac t must^//o w acomplain t

o r othe r participatio n i n an investigation , o r

alternativel y mus t

b e don e fo r

th e purpos e o f

interferin g with arigh t

o r privileg e secure db y Part

2 3 o r Part 26 . Waller

v . WichitaAirpor t

Authority , e t

al. , FA A Docke t

No . 16

- 98-1 3 a t * 4 (Director' s Determination , Marc h 12 , 1999 ) (rejectin g retaliatio n clai mwher e Complainan t

faile dt o sho w tha t

allege dretaliatio n interfere dwith arigh t o r privileg e secure db y Part 23) . Here , whe n MNA A notifie dJ& B tha t i t wa s goin g t o pu t

th e sho e shin e concessio n out for bid , J& B ha dnot

ye t "mad e acomplaint , testified , assisted , o r participate di n an y manne r i n an investigation , proceedin g o r hearing. " Al l J& B ha ddon e a t that poin t wa s notif y th e CE O o f MNA A tha t

i t was intereste di n explorin g "voluntar y options " for addressin g wha t

i t believe dt o b e MNA A an dHudson' s violatio n o f th e Part 2 6 regulations . D D Index , Ite m10 , Exhibi t 2 9

1 1(Apri l 1 5 200 8 lette r fromA . Robinso n t o R . Regalado) . Moreover , nowher e i n th e Apri l 1 5 lette r di dJ&B' s attorne y explicitl y complai n o f racia l discrimination . Id.* ^ Thi s lette r

di dnot constitut e protecte dactivity for purpose s o f

4 9 C.F.R . § 26.109(d) . In addition , MNA A di dno t issu e an RF P for

th e sho e shin e concessio n for th e purpos e o f interferin g with an y righ t o r privileg e conferte db y Part 2 3 o n J&B . Th e Authorit y ha dbee n tryin g withou t

succes s fo r

eigh t month s t o reac h agreemen t with J& B o n aleas e unde r whic hi t woul doperat e it s sho e shin e concession s i n conformanc e wit h th e redesig n project , includin g ne w locations , an dth e Authority' s long-rang e commercia l plans . N o "righ t o r privileg e secure d by " Part 2 3 o r Part 2 6 include s th e righ t

t o aperpetua l concessio n contrac t withou t havin g t o compet e for

it . (ii ) MNA A di dno t

tak e amateriall y advers e actio n agains t J& B Unde r th e Suprem e Court' s cas e la w o n retaliation , th e "advers e action " take n b y th e sponso r mus t b e '''materiall y adverse, " suc h that i n th e employmen t

discriminatio n context , a challenge dactio n "wel l migh t hav e dissuade dareasonabl e worke r frommakin g o r

supportin g a charg e o f discrimination. " Burlingto n N . & Sant aF e v . White , 54 8 U.S . 53 , 6 8 (2006) . I n Apri l 2008 , J& B wa s operatin g unde r ayear-to-year

contrac t whic h cam e u p for renewa l o n Augus t

3 1 o f eac h year . D D Index , Ite m10 , Exhibit s 8 an d9 (origina l leas e an d

^ In it s appeal , J& B cite da s support for it s retaliatio n clai man unpublishe dEleventh Circui t cas e fo r lega l authorit y regardin g retaliatio n cases . Appea l a t 8- 9 (Gerar dv . Boar do f

Regents , 200 9 W L110152 4 (11th Cir . 2009) . Wha t J& B fail s t o mention , however , i s tha t th e acttial holdin g i n Gerar dwas tha t th e plaintiff

, wh o allege dretaliator y withdrawa l o f promise dwor

k becaus e o f

sendin g acomplain t

letter , di dno t

engag e i n "protecte dactivity " wher e hi s complain t lette r di dno t specificall y assert

aclai mo f

"racia l discrimination. " 200 9 W L110152 4 a t * 8 (th e lette r "lai dou t alis t o f grievances , but

di dno t indicat e tha t

[plaintiff ] wa s discriminate dagains t base do n hi s membershi p i n aprotecte dgroup") . Similarly , here , th e Apri l 15 , 200 8 lette r from J&B' s counse l doe s not

assert aclai mo f

racia l discrimination .

1 2Dec . 199 9 lette r extendin g i t

o n year-to-year

basis) . Whe n MNA A first extende dth e J& B leas e o n ayear-to-year

basi s i n 1999 , J& B wa s informe di n writin g tha t th e Airport

woul dcontinu e renewin g th e leas e eac h yea r "unti l suc h tim e th e Authorit y implement s it s Lon g Rang e Commercia l Sfrategi c Plan. " D D Index , Ite m10 , Ex . 9 (Dec . 2 3 199 9 lette r fromR . Ramse y t o J . Druett) . Th e Termina l redesig n an dConcessio n Maste r Pla n ar e par t

o f th e implementatio n o f

th e Airport' s Lon g Rang e Commercia l Strategi c Plan . In 200 6 whe n MNA A brough t i n ane w maste r concessionair e for

news , gift , an dspecialt y retai l (Hudso n Group) , t o who mJ& B ha d agree dt o b e asubtenant , MNA A anticipate dtha t ane w subleas e betwee n Hudso n an dJ& B woul dreplac e th e direc t

leas e betwee n MNA A an dJ&B . Becaus e o f th e strin g o f

issue s raise d b y J& B i n th e summe r

an dfal l o f

2007 , however , asubleas e wa s neve r signed , an deve n thoug h i t was operatin g on e o f

it s operation s i n th e Hudso n stor e an dpayin g ren t t o Hudso n rathe r

tha n t o MNAA , J& B continue doperatin g unde r it s ol dlease , whic h di dnot reflec t th e curren t operations . Whe n i t

becam e apparen t

tha t n o agreemen t

o n asubleas e coul db e reache dbetwee n J& B an dHudson , MNA A decide dt o remov e J& B fromth e Hudso n Maste r Concessio n Agreemen t

an dente r int o adirec t

leas e wit h J&B . I n Apri l 2008 , MNA A receive dalette r fromJ&B' s coimse l allegin g MNA A was i n violatio n o f

it s ACDB E progra man dseekin g ameetin g withi n 3 0 day s t o attemp t t o resolv e th e problem s betwee n th e parties . D D Index , Ite m10 , Ex . 29 . Ove r th e nex t month an dahalf

, MNA A attempte dwithou t succes s t o se t

u p ameetin g with J& B an dit s attorney . D D Index , Ite m10 , Ex . 30 ; se e als o D D Index , Ite m7 ^ 23 . I n earl y Jvm e 2008 , havin g unsuccessfull y attempte dove r

a n eigh t mont h perio dt o negotiat e adirec t leas e with J&B , MNA A decide d instea dt o allo w J&B' s contrac t t o expir e an dput

th e sho e shin e concessio n ou t for bid , settin g

1 3fort

h th e term s o f

th e direc t leas e i n th e RFP . D D Index , Ite m10 , Ex . 30 . Thi s actio n was consisten t with it s 199 9 statemen t

tha t i t woul drene w J&B' s leas e eac h year unti l i t implemente dit s Lon g Rang e Commercia l Sfrategi c Plan . J&B' s clai mo n appea l tha t "MNA A ha dapositiv e an dsympatheti c vie w o f J& B .. . bu t onl y u p t o th e momen t

th e complain t

lette r wa s received " i s contrary t o th e record . (Appeal a t 10) . Subsequen t

t o th e complain t

letter , MNA A state dthat i t wa s "hopefu l Mr . an dMrs . Druett wil l participat e i n thi s [RFP ] proces s an dheartil y encourag e the mt o d o so. " D D Index , Ite m10 , Ex . 30 . Additionally , MNA A aske dJ& B t o "continu e t o provid e shoeshin e servic e o n amonth

to-month basi s unti l th e conclusio n o f th e competitiv e process. " Id . Finally , whe n J& B di dno t bi do n th e first

RF P MNA A calle dMr . Druett t o findou t

wh y h e didn' t

bi dan dt o urg e hi mt o bi do n th e secon dRFP . (Secon dAffidavi t o f R . Ramse y ^ 9,10) . Notwithstandin g th e airport' s outreach , J& B di dnot

submi t abi do n eithe r

th e first o r th e secon dRFP . Th e Authority' s decisio n not t o exten dJ&B' s year-to-year confrac t an dt o pu t

th e sho e shin e concessio n ou t

for bi dwa s no t

actio n "materiall y adverse " t o J&B , sinc e J& B ha dth e righ t

~ an dindee dwa s encourage db y MNA A —t o compet e for th e sho e shin e concession . J& B hel d th e sho e shin e concessio n for fifteen year s withou t

havin g t o compet e for

th e righ t t o operat e a

t th e Airport

durin g that

time . Tha t

J& B wa s aske dt o compete , afte r i t ha dneithe r

signe da subleas e with th e maste r

concessionair e no r

negotiate dane w direc t

leas e with MNAA , simpl y doe s no t constitut e a"materiall y adverse " ac t o n th e part

o f MNAA . A n airport

sponso r i s unde r n o legal obligatio n t o continu e t o allo w aconcessionair e t o operat e o n ayear-to-year basis , particularl y whe n th e airport sponso r ha s develope dan dimplemente dalong-termsfrategi c plan t o maximiz e concessio n revenue s i n th e contex t o f atermina l redevelopmen t project . Indeed , J& B itsel f

disavow s an y righ t

t o perpetua l operatio n o f th e sho e shin e concession . Appeal a t 23 .

1 4A s th e Directo r noted , pursuan t

t o Part 23 , a n ACEDB E progra mi s designe dt o creat e aleve l playin g fieldo n whic h ACDBE s can compet e fairl y fo r opportunitie s fo

r concessions . D D a

t 32 . Th e progra mdoe s no t

giv e ACDBE s th e privileg e o f no t havin g t o compet e a

t all . Se e 4 9 C.F.R . §23.1 . Accordingly , MNA A di dno t tak e actio n "materiall y adverse " t o J& B whe n it acte di n accordanc e with it s contractua l right s t o exercis e it s sol e discretio n no t t o rene w J&B' s year-to year contrac t an dinstea dt o issu e a

n RF P fo r th e sho e shin e concession . (iii ) MNA A ha dlegitimate , non-discriminator y reason s fo r no t renewin g J&B' s contrac t an dissuin g a

n RF P for th e sho e shin e concession . Eve n i f it i s assumed , contrary t o law , that J& B coul drais e th e retaliatio n issu e fo r th e first tim e o n appea l an dthat

J& B ha destablishe daprim afaci e cas e o f retaliation , J&B' s clai m o f retaliatio n stil l woul dfai l becaus e MNA A ha dalegitimate , non-discriminator y reaso n fo r issuin g a n RF P for th e sho e shin e concession . Roger s v . Metro . Washingto n Airpor t Auth. , FA A Docke t No . 13-93-2 8 a

t 8 (Order , Ma y 31 , 2000 ) (rejectin g retahatio n clai mbase dpartl y on non discriminatory reaso n fo

r terminatio n o f

taxicab concessio n contract) . A s describe dabove , J& B wa s o n notic e that it s year-to-year

contrac t woul db e renewe d onl y unti l "suc h tim e a s th e Authority implement s it s Lon g Rang e Commercia l Strategi c Plan. " D D Index , Ite m10 , Ex . 9 . Eve n afte r MNA A agree dt o tak e J& B ou t o f th e maste r concessionaire' s leas e s o tha t i t coul dhav e adirec t

leas e with th e airpor

t instea do f

subleasin g fromHudson , ane w concessio n agreemen t wa s neede dt o determine , amon g othe r things , ne w locations . Thi s was th e agreemen t whic h MNA A unsuccessfull y attempte dt o negotiat e wit h J& B in 2007-2008 . Th e airport neede dane w leas e fo

r it s shoeshin e concessio n t o reflec t ne w location s fo

r operation s an dt o reflec t

it s overal l concessio n programobjectives , an dit ha d becom e apparen t

that it an dJ& B wer e no t

abl e t o re-negotiat e J&B' s soon-to-expir e lease . 1 5Issuin g a n RF P for th e sho e shin e concessio n ca n hardl y b e considere dimprope r actio n b y MNA A whe n bot h Gran t Assuranc e 2 4 (requirin g airport s t o maintai n a"fe e an drenta l structur e for

th e facilitie s an dservice s a t th e airport

whic h wil l mak e th e airport a s self

sustainin g a s possibl e unde r th e circumstance s existin g a t th e particular

airport" ) an d4 9 C.F.R . § 23.7 5 (prohibitio n o n lon g termconfracts ) sfrongl y encourag e airport s t o competitivel y bi d confracts . I n ligh t

o f thes e requirements , FA A ha s hel dtha t a n airpor t sponsor' s us e o f

a n RF P proces s t o awar dconcessio n confract s doe s no t violat e it s ACDB E program , even i f i t result s i n a non-ACDB E bein g awarde dacontrac t instea do f

a n ACDBE . Albuquerqu e Vale t Parkin g Serv . V . Cit y o f Albuquerque , FA A Docke t No . 16-01-01 , 200 2 W L3442913 4 a t 8 (Final Agenc y Decisio n an dOrder , Aug . 2 , 2002 ) (holdin g o n appea l tha t awardin g acontrac t

t o ahighe r

bidde r tha n a n ACDB E wa s consisten t with Gran t

Assuranc e 2 4 an dno t

aviolatio n o f

th e airport sponsor' s obligation s unde r Part 23). ^ No r doe s complianc e with Part 2 3 requir e airport

sponsor s t o refrai n fromexercisin g thei r fundamental right s upo n learnin g that atenan t i s contemplatin g filing aPart 1 6 complaint . Fo r example , th e FA A foun dn o violatio n o f it s anti-retaliatio n rul e whe n a n airport sponso r declare d it s intentio n t o defen ditsel f i n aPart 1 6 proceeding , an dinforme dth e potential Complainan t a t a meetin g tha t

th e sponso r

woul d"pvirsu e al l right s i t ma y hav e agains t

[Complainant] " i f

sh e filed aPart 1 6 claim . Consolidate dServ . Engineer s & Constructors , Inc . v . Cit y o f Pal mSprings , FA A Docke t

No . 16-03-05 , 200 4 W L 319820 4 a t *4 4 (Director' s Determination , Jun e 10 , 2004) . Likewis e here , MNA A di dnot violat e Part

2 3 whe n i t

exercise dit s confractual righ t not t o rene w

^ Here , th e awar do f

th e sho e shin e concessio n contrac t t o Goodfellows , awoman-owne d ACDBE , wil l resul t

i n asignifican t

increas e i n revenue s t o MNA A ove r what wa s pai dt o MNA A b y J&B . Se e Sectio n l.A . above a t 4-5 . 1 6J&B' s year-to-year leas e an dexercise dit s right a s an airport

sponso r t o issu e a n RF P for th e shoeshin e concession . III . TH E AMS-OLYMPI C SUPPL Y JOIN T VENTUR E Next , althoug h th e issu e wa s not raise di n th e Complaint , J& B argue s o n appeal tha t th e Directo r erre db y failin g t o investigat e whethe r Olympi c Suppl y wa s abon afide participan t i n th e ownershi p an dconfro l o f th e AMS-Olympi c Join t

Ventur e wit h Hudson . Appea l a t 19-20 . I n conjunctio n with this , J& B argue s tha t th e Directo r

"completel y ignore dth e [FAA' s Join t Venture ] Guidanc e i n determinin g whethe r MNA A properl y me t

it s ACDB E goal s throug h th e Hudso n join t

venture , an di n determinin g whethe r MNA A properl y evaluate dth e join t ventur e participatio n o f

Olympi c Supply. " Appea l a t 20 . J& B claim s i t

"plainl y wa s error " for

th e Directo r no t t o conside r

every facet

o f join t venture s a s discusse db y th e FA A i n it s Guidanc e document . Id . J&B' s claim s with regar dt o Olympic' s participatio n i n th e join t ventur e mus t

b e rejecte d for thre e separat e an dindependen t reasons . First , thi s issu e wa s not raise dbelo w an dcanno t b e raise dfor th e first time o n appeal ; second , J& B lack s standin g t o challeng e th e structiur e o f th e join t venture ; an dthird , ther e i s n o evidenc e i n th e recor dwhic h support s th e clai mtha t th e join t ventur e i s structure dimproperly . A . Th e Assistan t

Administrato r

Shoul dStrik e Thi s Issu e Becaus e I t Wa s No t Raise dBelo w J& B improperl y raise s th e allegatio n tha t Olympi c doe s no t

sufficientl y participat e i n th e ownershi p an dcontro l o f

th e AMS-Join t

Ventur e for

th e first tim e o n appeal , an dfor

thi s reaso n alon e th e Assistan t

Adminisfrato r

shoul dstrik e i t

fromth e appeal . I t

i s wel l establishe dtha t

ne w issue s may no t

b e raise dfor

th e first tim e o n appea l i n aPart

1 6 proceeding . Roadhous e Aviation , lOQ l W L196616 0 a t *9 ; se e als o MNA A Motion t o Strike a t 5-8 . 1 7J&B' s Complain t allege donl y that

th e AMS-Olympi c Join t

Ventur e faile dt o mee t

th e 15.7 % confrac t

goa l becaus e (a ) Olympi c was not certifie da s an ACDB E i n Tennessee ; an d(b ) Olympi c di dno t

mee t a51 % ownershi p criterio n allegedl y require db y FA A regulation s for ACDBE/join t

ventures . Complain t

a t 2 . Notably , th e Complain t di dnot alleg e that

th e Join t Ventur e faile dt o mee t

an y applicabl e standard s fo r th e ACDBE' s actua l participatio n i n th e ownershi p an dcontro l o f

th e Join t Ventur e o r

i n th e work

o f th e confract . Th e Directo r i s imde r n o obligatio n t o assum e Complainan t intende dt o mak e an y clai mothe r tha n exactl y what

i t sai d i n it s Complaint . See , e.g. . Flaming o Express , Inc . v . Cit y o f Cincinnati , FA A Docke t No . 16-06

- 04 , 200 7 W L 239986 1 at

*1 2 (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder , Aug . 9 , 2007 ) (rejectin g Complainant' s argumen t that th e Directo r

faile dt o recogniz e aclai mnot raise di n th e Complaint , notin g tha t "[t]h e Directo r

coul dno t

hav e bee n expecte dt o assum e th e Complainan t reall y meant " somethin g othe r

than wha t

i t asserte di n it s Complaint) . Thus , th e entirel y ne w allegatio n relatin g t o Olympic' s participatio n i n th e AMS-Olympi c Join t Venture , raise dfor

th e first tim e i n J&B' s Appeal , shoul dnot

b e considere db y th e Assistan t Administrator . In addition , confrar

y t o J&B' s assertio n at

pag e 2 0 o f

it s Appeal , th e Directo r

di dno t ignor e th e Join t

Ventur e Guidanc e - h e specificall y reliedo n i t i n rejectin g th e allegation s J& B actuall y mad e i n th e Complaint ; tha t Olympic' s 17 % ownershi p o f th e Join t Ventur e coul dno t

b e counte dtoward s meetin g th e Authority' s 15.7 % ACDB E participatio n goal unles s Olympi c owne da t leas t 51 % o f th e Join t Venture . Th e Directo r

referre dt o th e Guidanc e i n finding tha t th e ACDB E nee dnot

ow n 51 % o f

th e join t ventur e i n orde r

fo r th e ACDBE' s participatio n i n a join t ventur e t o b e counte dtoward s a n airport' s ACDB E goals . D D a t 18 .

1 8B . J& B Lack s Standin g T o Challeng e Th e Structur e O f Th e Join t

Venture . Eve n i f i t i s assumed , contrar y t o law , that J& B coul drais e for

th e first tim e o n appeal Olympic' s actual participatio n i n th e join t venture , J&B' s clai mstil l mus t b e dismisse dbecaus e J& B lack s standin g t o rais e thi s issue . Part 1 6 require s tha t

aComplainan t

sho w tha t

i t wa s "directl y an dsubstantiall y affected " b y an y noncomplianc e wit h FA A requirements . 4 9 C.F.R . § § 16.23(a) , (b)(4) . I t als o require s th e Directo r

t o dismis s acomplain t

i f th e complainan t

lacks standin g t o file acomplain t unde r 16.23 . Id . § 16.25(c) . Pursuan t t o thes e requirements , J& B lacks standin g t o challeng e MNAA' s allege d noncomplianc e with agran t assuranc e i f

th e recor dprovide s n o evidenc e tha t J& B wa s directl y an dsubstantiall y affecte db y th e specifi c allege dnoncompliance . Thermc o Aviatio n Inc . v . Count y o f Lo s Angeles , FA A Docke t No . 16-06-0 7 (Final Agenc y Decision , Dec . 17 , 2007) . I n Thermco , th e Associat e Adminisfrato r agree dwith th e Director' s finding tha t th e Complainan t lacke dstandin g t o challeng e an airport sponsor' s us e eithe r

o f lan dfor non-aeronautica l purpose s becaus e th e Complainan t wa s not denie daleas e i n favo r

o f anon-aeronautica l tenan t o r becaus e n o aeronautica l lan dwa s available . Rather , th e Complainan t actuall y ha daleas e durin g th e entir e tim e th e airport

sponso r allegedl y wa s improperl y usin g lan dfor non-aeronautica l purposes . Id . a

t 24-25 . Here , lik e th e Complainan t i n Thermco , J& B continuousl y operate dit s sho e shin e concessio n durin g th e entir e perio di t allege s that

th e AMS-Olympi c Join t Ventur e wa s improperl y structured . Moreover , th e action s whic h J& B complain s o f (bein g force dint o a subleas e wit

h Hudson' s new s stores ; not havin g it s yezir-to-yea

r leas e renewe dwhe n i t

expire di n 2008 ) ar e unrelate dt o whethe r th e AMS-Olympi c Join t Ventur e was properl y structured , an d

1 9J& B ha s mad e n o effor t t o sho w otherwise . Whethe r o r not th e Join t Ventur e wa s properl y structure dha s n o bearin g o n whethe r J& B wa s abl e t o operat e it s sho e shin e concession , o r o n whethe r MNA A woul dimplemen t it s Maste r

Concessio n Pla n an drequir e th e sho e shin e g concessio n t o b e asubtenan t o f th e maste r

concessionaire . Accordingly , th e newl y raise dissu e o f th e structur e o f

th e join t ventur e shoul db e dismisse dsinc e J& B ha s not show n i n eithe r

th e Complain t

o r th e Appea l tha t

i t i s "directi y an d substantially " affecte db y th e statu s o f th e AMS-Olympi c Join t

Venture . C . Ther e i s N o Evidenc e i n th e Recor dt o Suppor t th e Clai mtha t

Olympi c Doe s No t Sufficientl y Participat e i n th e Ownershi p an dContro l o f th e Join t Ventur e Eve n i f i t i s assumed , contrary t o law , tha t J& B coul drais e for

th e first tim e o n appeal Olympic' s actual participatio n i n th e join t venture , an dtha t

i t ha s standin g t o d o so , th e clai m mus t b e dismisse dbecaus e J& B ha s faile dt o establis h an y impropriet y i n Olympic' s leve l o f participatio n i n th e ownershi p an dconfro l o f th e Join t Venture . I t i s wel l establishe dtha t

th e Complainan t

i n aPart 1 6 proceedin g ha s th e burde n o f pleadin g an dprovin g it s case . Adventur e Aviation , 200 3 W L2269692 3 at *15 . I n thei r pleadings . Complainant s mus t provid e a"concis e bu t

complet e statemen t

o f th e fact s reliedupo n t o substantiat e eac h allegation. " Flaming o Express , 200 7 W L239986 1 at *1 2 (emphasis i n original) . Also , a s previousl y noted , 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.29(b)(1 ) specificall y provide s tha t i n renderin g th e Director' s Determinatio n "th e FA A ma y rel y entirel y o n th e complain t an dth e responsiv e pleading s provide dunde r thi s subpart. " Th e Directo r i s unde r n o obligatio n t o investigat e beyon dth e pleadings . Adventur e Aviation , 200 3 W L2269692 3 a t *15 .

Indeed , i t coul db e argue dthat

J& B a s part

o f th e winnin g Hudso n bid , benefite dfromAMS

Olympic' s statu s a s a

n ACDB E Join t

Venture . 2 0Here , J&B' s ne w clai mwith regar dt o th e structvir e o f th e Join t Ventur e shoul db e dismisse d sinc e J& B ha s not

cite dt o asingl e piec e o f evidenc e i n th e recor dt o support it s ne w allegatio n tha t AMS-Olympi c violate s FA A Guidanc e regardin g join t ventures . Al l J& B submitte di n support o f thi s allegatio n i s th e improperl y proffere dletter s attache dt o it s Appeal , whic h ar e entirel y irrelevant , a s the y dea l with adifferen t entit y operatin g a

t adifferen t

airport. ^ Indee dth e ACDB E referre dt o i n th e proffere dletters , Olympi c News , wa s operatin g a s asublesse e o f Hudso n a t Baltimore-Washingto n Intl . Airport , no t a s apartne r

i n aJoin t Venture . Moreover , th e ultimat e conclusio n containe di n th e proffere dletter s i s tha t Olympi c News , th e DBE , i s no w i n complianc e with FA A requirement s fo r DBEs . IV . DISPARAT E IMPAC T J& B claim s that

th e Directo r

erre db y failin g t o findtha t MNAA' s maste r

concessionair e polic y ha dan unlawfii l disparat e impac t upo n African-Americans . Appea l at 12 . J&B' s appeal o f thi s issu e err s for

anumbe r

o f reasons . First , i t

i s base do n th e incorrec t premis e tha t

onl y African-American-owne dbusinesse s wer e designatedt o b e sub-tenant s o f th e maste r concessionaire . Second , J& B doe s not disput e tha t

i t di dno t infroduc e an y factual o r

statistica l evidenc e o f

disparat e impac t

o n African-Americans . An dfinally, MNA A ha dsubstantia l non discriminatory reason s fo r it s actions . A . Bot h African-America n an dNon-African-America n Owne dBusinesse s Wer e Mad e Subtenant s i n th e Concession s Maste r Pla n Th e cru x o f

J&B' s clai mo n appea l regardin g disparat e impac t i s th e demonstrabl y fals e allegatio n tha t

"th e recor ddemonstrate s that MNAA' s polic y adversel y affecte donl y a n African

American owne dconcession. " Appea l a t 11 . J& B argue s tha t

th e Directo r

correctl y identifie d

^ Se e MNAA' s Oppositio n t o Complainant' s Motio n t o Supplemen t th e Recor do n Appea l and Motio n t o Strike New Issue s Raise do n Appea l (file dJul y 16 , 2009) . 2 1MNAA' s " ne w Concession s Progra mPla n .. . an dspecifically , it s decisio n t o plac e th e sho e

shin e concessio n unde r

th e news , gif

t an dspecialt y retai l maste r concessionair e a s alocal subconfractor, " a s th e polic y tha t resulte di n allege ddiscrimination . Appeal a t 1 1 (citin g D D a

t 22) . J& B claim s incorrectly , however , tha t thi s polic y affecte donl y a n African-American owne d busines s becaus e "othe r

existin g concession s includin g non-minority-owne dconcession s wer e permitte dt o continu e t o operat e free o f [havin g t o b e asublesse e o f th e maste r

concessionaire ] an dunde r direc t concessio n agreements. " Appea l a t 11 . Th e recor dshow s tha t o f th e tw o concessionaire s require dt o becom e subtenant s t o th e maste r concessionair e unde r

th e News , Gif

t & Specialty Retai l plan , on e wa s African-America n owne d(J&B) , an dth e othe r wa s not (CBR).' ° D D Index , Ite m10 , Ex . 14 . In addition , an Afiican-American-owne dconcession , Nashvill e Nails , wa s amon g th e concession s tha t wer e permitte dt o kee p direc t lease s with th e airport. " D D Index , Ite m10 , Ex . 2 at vii . Thu s bot

h African-America n an dnon-African

America n owne dbusinesse s wer e slate dt o b e subtenant s t o Hudson , an dbot h African-American an dnon-African-America n businesse s retaine ddirec t lease s with th e Airport.' ^ Consequently , th e recor dcontradict s J&B' s argumen t o n appeal . Finally , eve n i f

J& B ha dbee n th e sol e sub-tenan t o f Hudson , MNAA , basedo n J&B' s dissatisfaction , offere dt o ente r int o adirec t

leas e withJ&B . It

was onl y after

i t prove d impossibl e t o negotiat e adirec t leas e with J& B that

MNA A requeste dbid s o n asho e shin e

' ° A t th e tim e th e NG& S RFP s wer e ou t fo r bids , CB Rwa s owne db y anon-minorit y woman ; i t ha s sinc e bee n bough t

b y Host , Inc. , whic h i s no t a n ACDBE . Se e D D Index , Ite m1 2 (DOOR S Report showin g CB Ra s anon-minorit y ACDBE) .

' ' Se e D D Inde x Ite m12 , DOOR S Report , showin g Nashvill e Nail s a s a n Afiican-American

owne dACDBE . 1 9 Th e Massag e bar , whic h i s non-African-American-owned , als o kep t it s direc t lease . Se e D D Inde x Ite m12 , DOOR S Repor t an dD D Index , Ite m10 , Ex . 2 at vii . 2 2concession , whic h woul db e operate dunde r adirec t leas e wit h th e airport . Se e Appeal a t 1 2 wher e (J& B acknowledge s tha t "MNA A ha s no w issue dRFP s for shoeshin e operation s a s direc t concession s wit h th e airport") . Inexplicabl y J& B faile dt o bi do n th e RFP s that provid e th e typ e o f leas e i t claim s t o hav e desired . B . J& B Di dNo t

Submi t An y Factua l o r

Statistica l Evidenc e Establishin g Disparat e Impact . A s th e Directo r

noted , t o mak e ashowin g o f disparat e impac t

unde r 4 9 C.F.R . § 26.7(b) , aComplainan t

mus t sho w tha t

Respondent' s faciall y neufra l polic y ha dadisproportionat e an d advers e impac t

o n similarl y situate dmember s o f th e protecte dclas s a s agroup , a s compare dt o member s o f

non-protecte dgroups . D D a t 21-22 ; se e als o Albuquerqu e Vale t Service , 200 2 W L 3442913 4 a

t *11 . J& B bor e th e burde n t o submi t factual an dstatistica l evidenc e showin g that MNAA' s polic y adversel y affecte dmember s o f th e protecte dgrou p a s compare dwith anon-protecte d group . J&B , however , submitte dn o suc h evidenc e and , therefore , di dno t mee t it s burde n t o mak e a . prim afaci e cas e o f

disparat e impact . Th e Directo r correctl y foun dthat

J& B ha dno t provide dan y evidenc e o f th e impac t

o f MNAA' s decision s o n othe r member s o f

J&B' s protecte d grou p o r o n similarl y situate dmember s o f anon-protecte dgroup . D D a t 22 . "Withou t

fact s o r statistica l data . Complainan t i s unabl e t o establis h acausal link betwee n th e neufra

l polic y an d th e allege ddisparat e impact. " Id . J& B argue s tha t

th e Directo r

erre db y designatin g agrou p o f on e - African America n sho e shin e operator s - a s th e relevan t protecte dgroup . Appea l a t 11 . Bu t a s demonstrate d above , eve n anecdota l compariso n t o othe r African-America n an dnon-African-America n news , gift , an dspecialt y retai l concessionair e fail s t o sho w adisparat e impac t o n Africa

n America n

2 3concessionaire s a s agroup . It wa s J&B' s duty , throug h statistica l evidence , t o demonsfrate a disparat e impac t

an di t faile dt o d o so . C . Th e Directo r

Correctl y Foun dtha t

MNA A Provide dSubstantia l Justificatio n Fo r It s Action s Eve n thoug h h e hel dthat

J& B ha dfaile dt o establis h st . prim afaci e cas e o f

disparat e impac t discrimination , th e Directo r the n assume dfor

th e sak e o f

argumen t tha t J& B ha dme t

it s burde n t o establis h Z

Lprim afaci e case , an dtha t th e burde n ha dshifte dt o MNA A t o demonstrat e asubstantia l justificatio n for it s decisio n t o assig n th e sho e shin e concessio n a s asubtenan t o f th e maste r concessionaire . D D a

t 22 . Th e Directo r

correctl y foun dtha t

MNA A ha dpresente da legitimat e justificatio n for it s decisio n t o mak e th e sho e shin e concessio n asub-tenan t o f Hudson . DDat23 . Th e recor ddemonsfrate s tha t th e decisio n t o hav e th e sho e shin e concessio n operat e unde r asubleas e wa s legitimatel y basedo n th e long-termbusines s objective s o f th e Airport , includin g increasin g custome r service . D D a

t 23 ; D D Index , Ite m10 , Ex . 2 a t 1- 2 -1- 6 (Goal s an dObjective s o f

th e Concession s Maste r

Plan) ; VII-11-1 2 (Propose dMerchandisin g Concepts) . Moreover , i n selectin g aparticular concessio n plan , th e Authorit y was properl y exercisin g it s discretio n ove r

it s ow n operation s an dfacilities : "Th e airport ha s discretio n i n fashionin g it s concession s progra m.. . FA A doe s no t see k t o confro l o r

direc t th e operation s o f

airports. " D D a t 23 . Th e sho e shin e concessio n was mad e asublesse e becaus e i t wa s goin g t o b e physicall y locate di n th e new s an dconvenienc e shop s a s par t o f amerchandisin g concept . Therefor e th e news , gift s an dspecialty operato r woul dnecessaril y b e responsibl e for subconfractin g th e shoeshin e stand . D D Index , Ite m10 , Ex . 2 a t VII-1 2 (Concession s Maste r Plan) . In othe r

words , i t wa s becaus e J& B operate dasho e shin e concession , no t becaus e it s owner s ar e African

2 4American , that i t was designatedt o b e asublessee . J& B mad e n o showin g i n it s Complaint , o r it s Appeal , that

th e Authority' s decisio n wa s base do n rac e rathe r tha n o n non-race-base d busines s reasons . I n addition , whe n i t

becam e apparen t

tha t J& B an dHudso n coul dno t reac h agreemen t

o n asublease , MNA A too k

th e shoeshin e concessio n ou t o f th e maste r

concessio n agreement , an d agree dt o continu e i t

a s adirec t

lease . Th e Directo r

foun dMNA A t o b e "full y responsiv e i n resolvin g al l issue s raise db y th e Complainant, " an dthat i t "attempte dt o d o everythin g i t believe di t

coul dt o facilitat e Complainant' s full participatio n i n th e ACDB E program. " D D a t 24.' ^ V . INTENTIONA LDISCRIMINATIO N (DISPARAT E TREATMENT ) O n appeal , J& B argue s tha t th e Directo r

misapplie dth e lega l standar dfor intentiona l discriminatio n an dtha t

h e erre di n finding tha t

MNA A ha dnot

violate d4 9 C.F.R . § 26.7(a) . Appeal a t 13 . J& B claim s tha t

i t was "denie dth e opportunit y an dfacilitie s properl y t o operat e it s concession, " an dthat

thi s denia l was a

n intentionall y discriminator y act , whic h targete dJ& B unfairl y becaus e i t

was an African-American-owne dbusiness . Id . Th e Directo r properl y found , however , tha t

J& B faile dt o mak e th e require dshowin g tha t MNAA' s decisio n t o mak e J& B a subtenan t o f Hudso n was motivate db y inten t t o discriminat e o n th e basi s o f race . J& B ha s provide dn o basi s i n it s Appea l t o sho w otherwise .

'• ^ In investigatin g allegation s o f gran t assuranc e violations , FA A i s conceme dwith th e airpor t sponsor' s curren t

complianc e o r

lac k o f compliance . Richar dE . Steer e v . Count y o f Sa n Diego , FA A Docke t

No . 16-99-15 , 200 4 W L 319820 9 at *9 , *16 , *21 , *2 2 (Final Decisio n an dOrde r Dec . 7 , 2004) . Thus , eve n i f a n airport sponso r has , i n th e past , violate dagran t assurance , a s lon g a s i t ha s correcte di t

b y th e tim e FA A make s it s determination , th e airport wil l not b e foun d i n violation . Id . a

t *9 , * 1 6 (citin g Wilson Ai r Cente r LL C v . FAA , 31 1 F.3 d80 7 (6* ^ Cfr . 2004) ) (actio n b y th e airport

t o cur e an y violatio n o f

federal obligation s i s ground s for dismissa l o f

th e cas e agains t

th e airport) . 2 5Whe n aComplainan t bring s aclai mo f

intentiona l discrimination , i t bear s th e burde n o f provin g that

th e Respondent' s challenge daction s wer e motivate db y inten t t o discriminate . D D a t 2 6 (citingElsto n v . Talladeg aCount y Bd . o f Ed. , 99 7 F.2 d1394 , 140 5 n. l 1 (11 * Cir . 1993) ; se e als o DO J Titl e V I Manua l a t 32 . Court s an dth e Departmen t o f Justic e hav e develope da burden-shiftin g mechanis mb y whic h aComplainan t can emplo y circumstantia l evidenc e t o rais e an inferenc e o f

intentiona l discrimination , whic h th e Responden t mus t the n rebu t

b y showin g i t ha dalegitimat e non-discriminator y reaso n for it s action . Albuquerqu e Vale t Service , 200 2 W L 3442913 4 a

t 8 . Thus , whe n i t

lack s direc t

proo f o f discriminator y motive , aComplainan t ma y follo w th e burden-shiftin g analyti c framework establishe di n McDonnel l Dougla s v . Green , 41 1 U. S 79 2 (1973 ) t o satisf

y it s burde n o f

proo f Id . J& B doe s no t

clai mt o hav e offere ddirec t proo f tha t MNA A acte dwith discriminatory motive . Rather , whil e i t

allege s th e Directo r

erre di n applyin g th e McDonnel l Dougla s framework, J& B provide s neithe r direc t proo f o f discriminator y motiv e no r a n alternativ e legal basi s for establishin g a

n inferenc e tha t

MNA A intentionall y discriminate dagains t J&B . Remarkably , J& B simpl y reject s th e requiremen t tha t i t mus t demonstrat e tha t

othe r similarly

situate dmember s o f

anon-protecte dgrou p wer e freateddifferentl y tha n i t was , claimin g tha t

th e Directo r was "requirin g J& B t o establis h th e impossible."'' * Instea do f submittin g th e fact s an dstatistic s require dt o mak e a . prim afaci e cas e o f disparat e treatmen t

o r intentiona l discrimination , J& B resort s t o vmsupporte dallegation s that , eve n i f accurate, woul dnot

support aclai mo f

intentiona l discrimination . Fo r example , J& B

'' * I n claimin g th e Directo r

erre di n it s applicatio n o f th e McDonnell-Dougla s framework, J& B erroneousl y claim s tha t

on e o f th e Director' s "findings " wa s tha t MNA A refuse dt o giv e J& B "compariso n informatio n o f th e othe r operator s withi n th e Airport. " Appea l a t 1 4 (citin g D D a

t 25) . Th e Directo r

neve r mad e suc h afinding. Rather , i n th e sectio n cite db y J&B , th e Directo r i s merel y re-statin g th e specifi c assertion s mad e b y J& B regardin g violation s o f § 26.7(a) . 2 6allege s tha t "MNAA' s action s .. . ha[ve ] resulte di n th e oustin g o f th e las t minority-owne d concessio n andonl y ACDB E concessio n fromth e news an dgift s concession s a t MNAA. " Appea l at 18 . Thi s allegatio n i s demonsfrabl y false . Th e Recor destablishe s tha t th e AMS

Olympi c join t

venture , whic h i s part

o f th e new s an dgift s concession , include s a n African

America n owne dACDB E a s a17 % partner . D D Index , Ite m8 ^ ^ 8-9 ; D D hidex . Ite m10 , Ex . 37 . Eve n i f

true , however , th e allegatio n woul dno t support aclai mo f

disparat e freatment

o r disparat e impact . MNA A i s unde r n o obligatio n t o ensur e tha t ther e i s a n ACDB E participatin g i n news an dgif

t concession s i n particular ; MNAA' s ACDB E participatio n goal i s airport-wide . In fact , unde r

4 9 C.F.R . § 23.41(d) , ACDB E goal s "ma y not b e subdivide dint o group-specifi c goals. " Thu s whethe r

ther e i s o r

i s not a n African-American owne dbusines s operatin g a s par t o f th e news , gift , an dspecialty retai l concession s i s irrelevan t t o proo f o f intentiona l discriminatio n o r disparat e freatment. In addition , a s with th e disparat e impac t claim , th e Directo r

assume d"i n th e interes t

o f obtainin g acomplet e review " tha t J& B ha destablishe daprim afaci e cas e o f discriminatio n basedo n disparat e freatment, an dfoun dtha t MNA A ha dprovide dlegitimate , non-discriminator y reason s for

it s action . D D a

t 27-28 . Th e Directo r

als o foun dtha t

th e Recor dshowe dMNA A ha dtake n "th e customary step s t o phas e i n th e ne w retai l concessio n operator , an dt o phas e ou t th e existin g operation s i n amanne r tha t woul dmaintai n shoeshin e concessio n servic e durin g th e transition. " Id . at

28 . Finally , th e Directo r foun dthat

MNA A ha dacte d"appropriatel y an d timel y i n respondin g t o Complainant' s concerns, " an dconclude dtha t "Complainan t

ha s no t prove n that

Responden t

ha dtreate dth e Druett s differentl y becaus e o f thei r race. " D D a

t 30 .

2 7Th e Directo r properl y applie dlega l preceden t t o analyz e J&B' s clai mo f intentiona l discrimination , an dproperl y foun dJ& B ha dfaile dt o establis h aprim afaci e cas e o f disparat e freatment/intentional discrimination . D D at 27 . I n addition , th e Directo r properl y foun dtha t

th e Recor dampl y demonsfrate s that MNA A mad e alegitimate , nondiscriminator y busines s decisio n abou t wher e i t wante dth e sho e shin e operatio n t o b e locate dunde r it s ne w maste r

concessio n plan . D D a

t 28 . Ther e i s simpl y n o basi s i n th e Record , direc t o r inferential , t o support

aclai m that MNAA' s acts wer e motivate db y inten t t o discriminat e agains t

J& B o n th e basi s o f

race . Th e Directo r

di dnot er r i n holdin g that

J& B faile dt o demonsfrat e otherwise . Ha dJ& B responde dt o th e recen t RFP s for th e sho e shin e concession , i t woul dhav e ha d th e opportunit y t o continu e operatin g a t th e airport . It s failur e t o d o s o canno t b e blame do n raciall y discriminator y action s b y MNAA : tha t wa s adecisio n mad e b y J& B itself. MNAA' s selectio n o f

ane w ACDB E t o operat e th e sho e shin e concessio n at th e Airport , i n lie u o f

an entit y (J&B ) tha t

di dno t eve n submi t

abid , i s not

evidenc e o f

discrimination . Th e Authorit y ha s legitimat e busines s reason s for selectin g Goodfellow s Shoeshin e t o operat e th e concession , whic h propose dt o generat e substantiall y greate r revenue s tha n ha dbee n generate db y J&B . Se e Secon dAffidavi t

o f R . Ramse y H

H 16-1 8 VI . GENERA L COMPLIANC E WIT H PART S 2 3 AN D 2 6 AN D GRAN T ASSURANCE S Lastly , J& B allege s that

th e Directo r

erre di n concludin g tha t

MNA A complie dwithth e appropriat e regulation s an dgran t assurance s becaus e regardles s o f th e effort s MNA A mad e t o accommodat e J&B' s concerns , i t onl y mad e "empt y promises " an d"faile dt o correc t th e behavio r an dcondition s abou t

whic h J& B constantl y complained. " Appea l a t 17 .

2 8A . Th e Recor dSupport s th e Director' s Findin g Tha t MNA A Mad e Extraordinar y Effort s t o Accommodat e J&B' s Concern s Th e Recor dclearl y demonstrate s th e repeate dan dconsisten t effort s b y MNA A t o addres s th e complaint s raise db y J&B . See , e.g , D D Index , Ite m1 0 a t 12-17 . T o th e exten t

tha t J&B' s centra l complain t

wa s havin g t o becom e asubtenan t locate dinside th e Hudso n new s stores , tha t

proble mwas resolve db y th e Authority' s offer t o mak e J& B adirec t

tenan t and , whe n tha t failed , b y th e Authority' s issuanc e o f RFP s for adirec t leas e with MNA A o n whic h th e Authorit y urgedJ& B t o bid . Se e Exhibit s A an dC t o Secon dAffidavi t o f R . Ramse y at . In addition , Hudson , at

th e reques t

o f th e Authority , ha s permitte dJ& B t o operat e out o f it s stor e for almos t tw o year s withou t

asublease . D D Index , Ite m10 , Ex . 24 ; D D Index , Ite m6 ^ 33 . Th e Recor dals o show s tha t MNAA' s attempt s t o resolv e aproble mfor J& B often me t withresistanc e o r

inconsistencie s fromJ&B' s owners , th e Druetts . Th e Druett s refuse dt o mee t with th e Afiican-America n owner s o f Olympi c Supply , whic h wa s aparticipan t i n th e Join t Venture . D D Index , Ite m1 0 a t 14 , 15 . Th e Druett s demande dconcession s fromth e Authority an dthe n refuse dt o accep t them . Id . a

t 15-16 . Th e Druett s wer e slo w t o respon d- o r totall y non responsiv e - t o request s for meetings . Id . at

12-16 . Th e Druett s faile dt o confirmthei r agreemen t

i n writin g o n acceptabl e location s for th e sho e shin e stands , whe n MNA A wa s attemptin g t o negotiat e adirec t leas e with them . D D Index , Ite m7 f 22 . Mos t

importantly , whe n the y wer e encourage dt o bi do n an RF P containin g th e term s the y ha dbee n seeking , J& B di dno t submi t abid . Secon dAffidavi t

o f R . Ramse y Y i 9 , 12 . Th e fac t th e MNA A pu t

th e sho e shin e concessio n ou t for a n RFP i s no t

evidenc e o f

an y racia l discriminatio n o n MNAA' s part . Quit e t o th e contrary , a s th e Directo r accuratel y noted , an dJ& B conceded . Part

2 3 doe s no t

giv e J& B aperpetua l right t o operat e th e sho e shin e concessio n withou t

competin g for

th e right. D D a

t 32 ; Appea l a

t 23 . MNA A di dal l i t

coul dt o 2 9provid e aleve l playin g field; tha t J& B chos e not

t o compet e o n that

fielddoe s no t

plac e MNA A i n non-complianc e wit h Part s 2 3 o r 26 , o r it s gran t assurances . If

, a s i t claim s i n it s Appeal , J& B onl y seek s "th e opportunit y t o operat e th e concessio n i t ha s sinc e 199 2 o n term s that ar e fair an d wil l allo w i t

t o succeed, " i t

onl y ha dt o submi t

abi do n th e mos t

recen t RFP . It s failur e t o d o s o suggest s that

i t seek s somethin g mor e tha n merel y aleve l playin g field. Se e Sun's . Inc . v . Por t o f Seattle , FA A Docke t

No . 16-06-13 , 200 8 W L 595535 2 a t *2 1 (Director' s Determination , Nov . 14 , 2008 ) (emphasizin g tha t th e ACDB E progra mi s designe dt o creat e aleve l playin g field). Ironically , eve n i f

th e Directo r

ha dfoim dMNA A i n violatio n o f

it s ACDB E progra mo r som e section s o f

Part 23 , th e correctiv e actio n pla n t o b e develope db y MNA A an dsubmitte dt o FA A woul dlikel y b e for

MNA A t o solici t

bid s for th e sho e shin e concessio n - thereb y providin g J& B witha"leve l playin g field" t o compet e for th e concession . Ove r

th e sprin g an dearl y summe r o f 2009 , MNA A provide dprecisel y tha t opportunity . J&B , however , electe dno t t o submi t abi do n MNAA' s RF P for asho e shin e concessionair e and , thereby , too k itsel f of f th e fieldaltogether . VII . CONCLUSIO N Th e Recor dampl y support s th e Director' s Determinatio n that : (1 ) J& B faile dt o establis h aprim afaci e cas e o f

intentiona l discriminatio n o r disparat e impact , (2 ) MNA A ha dlegitimat e busines s reason s for

it s actions ; an d(3 ) MNA A ha s operate dit s ACDB E progra mi n goo dfait h an di n complianc e with 4 9 C.F.R . Peirts 2 3 an d2 6 an dth e relevan t Gran t Assurances . Th e tw o ne w issue s raise dfor th e first tim e o n appea l - retaliatio n an dth e leve l o f Olympic' s actual participatio n i n th e join t ventur e - shoul db e rejecte da s untimely . Th e clai m regardin g Olympi c shoul dals o b e dismisse dbecaus e J& B lacks standin g t o rais e it . I f reviewe d o n th e merits , both ne w claim s shoul db e rejecte da s unproven .

3 0Consequently , MNA A respectfull y request s tha t th e Assistan t

Adminisfrato r

(1 ) den y J&B' s Appeal ; (2 ) affir

mth e Director' s findings o f fac t an ddetermination s o f

law ; an d(c ) affir mth e dismissa l o f

J&B' s Complaint . Respectfiill y submitte dthi s 2n dda y o f September , 2009 :

Robert Watso n Metropolita n Nashvill e Airpor t Authorit y On e Termina l Drive , Suit e 50 1 Nashville , T N 3721 4 Telephone : (615 ) 275-163 7 Facsimile : (615)275-430 2 ^ l/V>S< ' lu r P . Ber g KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCK^^^EL L LL P 64 1 Lexingto n Ave . Suit e 140 9 Ne w York , N Y 1002 2 Telephone : (212 ) 328-951 5 Facsimile : (646 ) 514-544 0

Thoma s Devin e KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWEL L LLP 100 1 Connecticu t

Av e NW , Suit e 80 0 Washington , D C 2003 6 Telephone : (202 ) 955-5600X56 8 Facsimile : (202 ) 955-561 6 Lis aReynold s KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWEL L LL P 167 5 Broadway , Suit e 230 0 Denver , C O 8020 2 Telephone : (303 ) 825-700 0 Facsimile : (303 ) 825-700 5

3 1CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t I hav e thi s day serve dth e foregoin g Repl y T o Complainant' s Appea l O f Th e Director' s Determinatio n o n th e followin g persons a t th e followin g addresse s b y overnigh t Federa l Express : FA A Offic e o f

th e Chie f Counse l Par t 1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docket , AGC-61 0 Roo m92 5 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Origina l an d3 copie s VI A Federa l Expres s No . 796 9 122 7 964 3 Thoma s J . Henderso n Henderso n Law Firm , PLL C Suit e 35 0 142 5 K Street , NW Washington , D C 2000 5 On e Cop y VI A Federa l Expres s No . 797 8 998 6 632 5 Date dthi s 2n dda y o f

September , 2009 : Lis aA . Reynold ^ Counse l fo

r Responden t

MNA A