UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N WASHINGTON , D C

J& B ENTERPRISES , INC. , db a RHYTH M SHINE , Complainant , Docke t No
. 16-08-0 7 METROPOLITA N NASHVILL E AIRPOR T 1^2 1 AUTHORITY , Respondent
. ^ ^

FINA L AGENC Y DECISIO N AN D ORDE R>

• i

, 3 I
. INTRODUCTIO N

Thi s matte r

i s befor e th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) Assistan t Administrato r

for Civi l Right s an dDiversit y Advocat e (Assistan t Administrator ) o n a

n appea l filedb y J & B Enterprises , Inc. , dba
. Rhyth mShin e (Complainant ) fro mth e Director' s Determinatio n o f Ma y 5 , 2009 ; issue db y th e Directo r o f th e Offic e o f

Airport Complianc e an dFiel dOperation s (Director ) pursuan t t o th e Rule s o f Practic e fo

r Federally-Assiste dAirport Enforcemen t

Proceeding s foun di n Titl e 1 4 Cod e o f Federa l Regulation s Par t

1 6 (1 4 CF RPart

16)
. Th e Complainan t

argue s o n appea l t o th e Assistan t Administrato r tha t th e Director , i n issuin g th e Director' s Determination , erre di n causin g th e FA A t o dismis s th e Complainant' s complaint
. Complainan t

file dacomplain t

pursuan t t o 1 4 CF RPart

1 6 agains t

th e Metropolita n Nashvill e Airport Authorit y (MNAA ) (Respondent) , allegin g Responden t i s in violatio n o f

4 9 CF RPart

26 , Participatio n b y Disadvantage dBusines s Enterprise s in Departmen t o f Transportatio n Financia l Assistanc e Programs , an d4 9 CF RPar t

23 , Participatio n o f

Disadvantage dBusines s Enterpris e i n Airpor t Concessions. ' Th e Complainan t

file dit s complain t

with th e FA A o n Jul y 30 , 2008 , an di t wa s dockete db y th e FA A o n Augus t 11,2008
. Th e recor dherei n reveal s th e followin g genera l facts
. Th e Complainan t i s acertifie dAirpor t

Concessio n Disadvantage dBusines s Enterpris e (ACDBE ) owne dan doperate db y Jame s an dBett y Druett
. Th e Complainan t

ha s operate da

t th e Nashvill e Intemationa l Airpor t sinc e 199 2 unde r

adirec t leas e with th e Airport
. I

n 2006 , th e Responden t

implemente dane w concession s pla n whic h require dth e shoeshin e operation s t o b e sublease dunde r amaste r concessionaire
. In Novembe r 2006 , th e Responden t

awarde d maste r retai l concessio n contract s t o Airport Managemen t

Services , LL C (th e Hudso n Group) , whic h FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite m1
. FA A Exhibi t 1 i s attachedhereto
.includedth e awar do f tw o shoe-shin e operation s t o th e Complainant
. A s o f Octobe r 31 , 2008 , th e Complainan t

ha s bee n operatin g in tw o location s a s amonth-to-month tenan t (on e locatio n nea r

gat e B- 5 insid e th e CN N store , an dth e othe r locatio n i n th e C Concourse ) at th e Nashvill e Intemationa l Airport. ^ Th e Complainan t

allege s tha t

Responden t

directl y discriminate dagains t i t o n th e basi s o f

it s rac e (Africa

n American ) i n violatio n o f 4 9 CF R§ 26.7 , an dtha t

Responden t

further violate dth e regulatio n b y administerin g it s ACDB E programi n adiscriminator y manner . Specifically , Complainan t allege s tha t Responden t

awarde dboth o f

th e News , Gift s an dSpecialty Retai l maste r concessio n contract s t o asingl e prim e contracto r

wh o faile dt o mee t

th e ACDB E contrac t

goa l o f 15. 7 percent.' ' Complainan t als o allege d tha t Responden t

breache dit s Concession s Agreemen t wit h Complainan t

whe n i t sough t t o alte r th e layou t an dstor e locafion , withou t notifyin g Complainant , an dordere dth e closur e o f th e J & B stor e in Concours e B- 1 i n Jul y 200 7 afte

r Responden t

awarde dth e prim e contract s t o th e Hudso n Group." * A s aconsequenc e o f

thi s allege dbreac h o f

th e Concessio n Agreement , Complainan t state s tha t

i t wa s place di n th e CN N stor e a s oppose dt o th e Hudso n New s store , whic h wa s amuc h les s attractiv e locatio n fo r ashoeshin e operation , subjectin g Complainan t t o b e pu t a t adistinc t busines s disadvantag e with resultin g financial loss
. Accordin g t o Complainant , th e su mo f th e abov e discriminator y act s violate d4 9 CF R§ 26.7(b ) an d4 9 CF R§ 23.1(e). ^ Additionally , Complainan t allege s tha t

Responden t

violate d4 9 CF R§ 23.1(b ) b y no t providin g Complainan t

with aleve l playin g fieldwhe n Responden t chos e no t

t o interven e i n th e disput e betwee n Complainan t

an dth e Hudso n Grou p regardin g th e negotiatio n an dcompletio n o f asubleas e agreement. * Th e Par t 1 6 complain t

als o state s tha t

Hudso n discriminate dagains t th e Complainan t

o n th e basi s o f

it s rac e "b y resortin g t o tactic s o f intimidation. " Th e allege dact s o f intimidatio n include dbein g ordere dt o pa y for ashoeshin e boot h tha t

neithe r me t th e need s o f

it s customer s no r

it s operationa l requirements , an d bein g threatene dwith remova l fro mth e premise s b y Responden t an dHudso n i n fiirtherance o f a n illegal conspirac y t o forc e Complainan t int o signin g asubleas e agreement. ^ Complainan t

furthe r allege s "that

Responden t

violate d4 9 CF R§ 26. 7 an d§ 23. 1 whe n i t decide dno t

t o remov e Complainan t

fro mth e Hudso n contracts , an dwhe n Responden t refuse dt o mov e i t

fro mit s CNN locatio n t o on e o f

th e tw o identifie dstor e location s o f th e Complainant' s choosing. ^ Complainan t assert s tha t al l o f th e abov e programadministratio n decisions wer e roote di n racia l bia s implemente ddirectl y an d throug h contractua l an dothe r arrangements , with th e desire dgoa l o f erectin g barrier s i n Complainant' s path an dcausin g i t

economi c disadvantag e an dfinancial loss.
. Th e FA A Director' s Determinatio n wa s serve do n Ma y 6 , 2009 , an dmad e th e followin g findings: (1 ) Th e Respondent' s Metropolita n Nashvill e Airpor t Authorit y complie dwith 4 9 CF RPar t 2 3 i n goo dfait

h i n awardin g th e Hudso n Grou p th e tw o News , Gifts , an dSpecialt y Retai l concessio n contract s (NGSP- 1 ^FAA, Exhibit

1 , Ite m6 a t 2 an d4
. ^ FA A Exhibit 1 Ite mI , a t 2-3
. ^Id
. ^ Id
. a t 2-3
. «Id
. 'Id
. ^Id
.an dNGSP-2 ) at Nashvill e Intemationa l Airport ; (2 ) Th e Respondent' s administratio n o f it s ne w shoeshin e concessio n leasin g polic y an dprocedur e di dno t hav e adisparat e impac t

o n Complainan t

i n violatio n o f

th e provision s o f

4 9 CF R§ 23. 9 an d4 9 CF R§ 26.7(b) ; (3 ) Th e Responden t di dno t discriminat e agains t

th e Complainan t

o n th e basi s o f

it s rac e i n violatio n o f

4 9 CF R§ 23. 9 an d4 9 CF R§ 26.7(a) , an d(4 ) Th e Responden t complie dwit

h th e administrative , genera l an dcomplianc e requirement s o f 4 9 CF RPart s 2 3 an d2 6 an dGran t Assurance s No
. 3 0 an dNo
. 37
. Th e Complainan t

appeal s th e Director' s Determination , assertin g that th e Directo r

erre di n dismissin g it s complaint
. Th e Complainan t allege s tha t

i t ha s show n an destablished : (1 ) tha t Respondent' s administratio n o f

it s ne w shoeshin e concessio n leasin g polic y an dprocedur e discriminate dagains t Complainan t

i n violatio n o f

4 9 C.F.R
. § § 23. 9 an d26.7 ; (2 ) th e Complainan t wa s subjecte dt o disparat e treatmen t discriminado n in violatio n o f 4 9 C.F.R
. § § 23. 9 an d26.7(b) ; (3 ) th e Hudso n Group' s join t ventur e proposa l faile dt o mee t Respondent' s ACDB E goa l requirement ; (4 ) th e Respondent' s actions , o r inaction , individuall y o r

cumulatively , wer e contrar y to 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 dFedera l Gran t Assurance s Nos
. 3 0 an d37 ; an d(5 ) tha t th e Director faile dcompletel y t o recognize , an dt o findo n th e basi s o f "undispute dfacts" , tha t

Responden t intentionall y discriminate dagains t Complainan t

b y retaliating agains t

i t for makin g acomplain t

that Responden t

an dHudso n wer e i n violafio n o f th e ACDB E regulations , specificall y 4 9 C.F.R
. § § 23.1 1 an d 26.109
. Upo n a n appea l o f

aPar t 1 6 Director' s Determination , th e Assistan t Administrato r

mus t determin e whether : (1 ) th e Finding s o f fac t mad e b y th e Directo r

ar e supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidence : an d(2 ) eac h conclusio n o f la w i s mad e i n accordanc e with applicabl e law , precedent , an dpubli c policy
. [Se e e.g . Rick s v . Millingto n Municipa l Airport , FA A Docke t No
. 16

- 98-19 , p.2 1 (12/30/99 ) an d1 4 CF RPart 16 , §16.227 ] A revie w o f

th e Complainants ' appea l fro mth e Director' s Determinatio n raise s th e followin g issue s for consideratio n b y th e Assistan t Administrator : A
. Whethe r

th e Director

erre db y failin g t o conside r an dfindRespondent' s decisio n to solici t publi c bid s for

th e Shoeshin e Service s Concessio n upo n expiratio n o f th e Complainant' s agreemen t o n Augus t

31 , 200 8 a s a

n unlawfii l discriminator y ac t o f retaliation ; B
. Whethe r

th e Director

erroneousl y conclude dtha t Respondent' s complie di n goo dfait h with th e provision s o f

4 9 C.F.R
. Par t

2 3 i n awardin g th e Hudso n Grou p th e tw o News , Gifts , an dSpecialt y Retai l concessio n contract s (NGSP- 1 an dNGSP-2 ) at th e Nashvill e Intemationa l Airport , an dtha t Hudso n Grou p me t

Respondent' s ACDB E Contrac t Goal o f 15. 7 percent ; C
. Whethe r

th e Director

erre di n findin g tha t

Responden t

ha dno t violate d4 9 C.F.R
. §§23. 9 an d26.7(b) , no r

discriminate dagains t

Complainan t

an doperator s o f

Complainant' s rac e (African American) , i n th e administratio n o f it s ne w shoeshin e concessio n leasin g polic y an dprocedure ;D
. Whethe r th e Directo r

erroneousl y conclude dtha t Complainan t

wa s no t subjecte dt o disparat e treatmen t

o r discriminatio n becaus e o f it s rac e (African American ) i n violatio n o f 4 9 C.F.R
. 23. 9 an d26.7(a) ; an d E
. Whethe r

th e Directo r

erre din findin g that

th e Responden t

complie dwit h th e administrative , genera l an dcomplianc e requirement s o f 4 9 C.F
. R
. 2 3 an d2 6 an dGran t Assurance s No
. 3 0 an dNo
. 37
. I n arrivin g a t

aFina l decisio n o n thi s appeal , th e FA A ha s examine dth e Director' s Determinatio n wit h th e correspondin g record , an dth e appea l an drepl y submitte db y th e partie s i n ligh t o f applicabl e la w an dpolicy
. Base do n thi s examination , th e FA A affirm s th e Director' s Determination
. Th e FA A Assistan t Administrato r

find s tha t

th e Director' s Determinatio n i s supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidence
. Th e Complainants ' appea l di dno t provid e substantiv e facts , rational e o r la w sufficien t

t o revers e an y portio n o f

th e Director' s Determination
. Thi s Decisio n constitute s th e fina l decisio n o f

th e Assistan t

Administrato r

pursuan t

t o 1 4 CF R§ 16.33(a)
.

11
. TH E AIRPOR T

Nashvill e Intemationa l Airport i s apublic-use , medium-hu b commercial-servic e airport i n Nashville , Tennessee
. Th e Metropolita n Nashvill e Airpor t Authorit y (MNAA ) own s an doperate s Nashvill e Intemationa l Airpor t

an don e othe r

airport
. MNA A i s th e airport sponso r for th e purpose s o f

complianc e with federal statutes , regulations , an dgran t assurances . I n eac h o f

th e fiscal year s fro m200 6 throug h 2008 , MNA A receive dfederal financial assistanc e unde r FAA' s Airpor t

Improvemen t

Progra m(AIP ) to finance i n whol e o r

i n par t th e plannin g an ddevelopmen t o f Nashvill e Intemationa l Airport. ' Th e AI P programi s agran t

progra mauthorize db y th e Airport an dAirwa y Improvemen t Act , 4 9 US C § 47101 , e

/ seq . A s arecipien t

o f Federa l AI P fiinds , th e Responden t i s subjec t

t o al l gran t

assurances , includin g th e assuranc e t o compl y with th e requirement s o f Titl e 4 9 CF RPart s 2 6 an d23 , th e DB E an dACDB E regulation s o f

th e U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportation
.

III
. (A ) BACKGROUN D

Fro m199 2 t o 2006 , th e Complainan t successfull y operate dashoeshin e concessio n unde r adirec t leas e with Responden t

at Nashvill e Intemationa l Airport
. Th e ter mo f th e Complainant' s leas e ran initiall y

' FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite m11 , FA A AI P Gran t Histor y fo r MNAA
.fro m199 2 throug h 1997 , whe n th e partie s renewe di t for tw o mor e years . In Decembe r 1999 , th e Responden t

an dth e Complainan t

agree dt o rene w th e leas e o n ayear-by-yea r basis , with eac h year

t o mn fro mSeptembe r

1 throug h Augus t

31.' ° I n 2005 , Responden t

bega n a$3 5 millio n renovatio n programfor th e termina l a

t Nashvill e Intemationa l Airport tha t woul dinvolv e relocatin g concession s t o area s beyon dth e securit y checkpoint s withi n th e concourses , an dexpandin g th e numbe r o f concession s t o generat e substantiall y greate r revenue s fo

r th e Airport
. I n preparatio n for th e termina l upgrad e project , th e Authority' s Boar do f Commissioner s adopte d ane w Concession s Maste r Pla n in Octobe r

200 4 that , amon g othe r

things , calle dfor

on e maste r concessionair e for

news , gift , an dspecialt y retai l concessions
. Th e Maste r Pla n i n it s descripfio n o f th e news , gift , an dspecialt y retai l concept s specifie dtha t a"shoeshin e stan dwoul db e incorporate dint o tw o o f th e new s an dconvenienc e shops , 'eithe r withi n o r immediatel y adjacen t

t o thes e stores. " In Febmar y . 2006 , Responden t

issue daReques t

for Proposal s (RFP ) tha t

reflecte dth e Maste r

Concessio n Pla n requirement s fo

r th e shoeshin e services. " Th e RF P include da15. 7 percen t ACDB E contrac t

goal.' ^ Accordin g t o Respondent , MNA A staf f explaine dth e upcomin g change s i n th e leas e arrangemen t for th e shoeshin e operatio n an dth e ne w solicitatio n requirement s t o th e Complainan t (Mr
. Jame s Dmett ) prio r t o th e developmen t

o f MNAA' s 200 4 Concession s Maste r Plan an dth e Februar y 6 , 200 6 issuanc e o f th e RFP
. MNAA' s Manage r o f Propertie s state dthat

"Jame s Dmet t

an dI ha dnumerou s conversation s abou t locatin g th e sho e shin e concessio n i n th e newsstand s a s par t o f MNAA' s ne w NG& S program . Durin g thes e conversations , Jame s indicte dt o m e tha t h e understoo dtha t

th e sho e shin e service s at th e Airport woul db e provide da s asubtenan t o f whoeve r wa s selecte da s th e prim e tenan t a s aresul t

o f th e RF P process."' ^ Additionally , Responden t reporte dthat

Jame s Dmet t

attende damandator y pre-proposa l meetin g o n Febmar y 24 , 2006 , wher e discussio n o f th e requirement s an dobjective s o f th e RFP , includin g th e sho e shin e component , too k place.'" * Th e Complainan t

wa s include di n tw o o f

th e thre e proposal s tha t

wer e submitte dt o Responden t in respons e t o th e News , Gifts , an dSpecialt y Retai l RFP.' ^ Th e RF P wa s t o resul t i n tw o awards , eac h reflectin g apackag e o f

concessio n location s withi n th e Airport
. Eac h packag e containe dashoeshin e location
. Th e concessio n packag e labele dNGS- 1 include dth e new s stor e an dshoeshin e concessio n a t are aB-5 , whil e th e packag e labele dNGS- 2 include dasimilar new s store/shoeshin e concessio n at C-2.' * O n Septembe r

20 , 2006 , Responden t

awarde dboth package s o f th e News , Gifts , an dSpecialt y Retai l concession s t o th e Hudso n Group
. Th e Complainan t wa s include di n both awards
. O n Novembe r 30 , 2006 , th e Hudso n Grou p entere dint o aMaste r Leas e an dConcessio n Agreemen t with Respondent.' ^ Th e

'"FAAExhibi t

1 , Ite m1 0 at8
. "Id
. a t 9
. ' ^ Id
. a t 10
. ' ^ FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite m6 a t 2
. 'Md
. "Id
. at3
. " ^ FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite m1 0 a t 9
. '" ^ FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite m1 0 a t 11 , an dIte m6 a t 3
.renovatio n o f B Concours e bega n i n 2006 , an ddesig n an dconstmcdo n o f th e newsstan da

t B- 5 bega n i

n th e sprin g o f

2007.' ^ Accordin g t o MNAA' s Airport Concession s Disadvantage dBusines s Enterpris e Liaiso n Officer (ACDBELO) , th e Complainan t (Ms
. Bett y Dmett ) droppe db y he r offic e i n Ma y 2007 , amont h after sh e becam e ACDBELO , "t o expres s he r conce mabou t

th e allege dlac k

o f follo w u p an dinvolvemen t fro m Hudso n with regar dt o finalizin g asublease , build-ou t o f th e sho e shin e stan di n Spac e B5 , an dothe r issues." " Th e ACDBEL O state dtha t sh e "the n spok e with Rebecc aRamsey , MNA A Propertie s Manager , abou t

th e issue s raised , [and ] fro mther e bega n aserie s o f interna l meeting s a s t o ho w t o accomplis h amutuall y acceptabl e agreemen t betwee n complainan t

J& B an dHudson."'^ " O n Jul y 27 , 2007 , th e "B " Concours e Spac e B- 5 CN N newsstan dopene dfor business
. Accordin g t o Rebecc aRamsey , Manage r o f Properties , aroun dthi s time , th e Complainan t "expresse dhi s displeasur e with th e "B " Concours e location , th e stan ditself , th e environmen t

o f bein g insid e th e newsstan drathe r tha n bein g i n astan dalon e operation , a s i t ha dbee n previously."^ ' Th e Complainan t als o raise da

n issu e with th e amoun t

o f ren t the y wer e bein g charge dat th e B-location
. Previously , the y ha dbee n require dt o pa y four percen t o f gros s sale s unde r

thei r direc t leas e with Respondent
. Unde r th e ne w Maste r

Leas e betwee n th e Airport

an dth e Hudso n Group , th e Complainan t wa s require dt o pa y 1 3 percen t o f gros s receipts
. I n respons e t o Complainant' s concem , "MNAA , i n spit e o f bein g unde r

n o lega l obligado n to d o so , gav e th e Hudso n Grou p approva l t o collec t onl y 4 percen t

ren t fro mJ& B consisten t

with wha t

the y ha dbee n remittin g t o th e Authority."^ ^ Althoug h Hudso n Grou p an dComplainan t at thi s tim e hadno t finalizedasublease , Hudso n Grou p agree dt o collec t onl y 4 percen t

ren t fro mJ&B
. (CIT E I

N FN ) O n Augus t

20 , 2007 , th e Complainan t wrot e t o MNAA' s Chie f Executiv e Officer

(CEO) , informin g hi m o f numerou s grievance s with th e Hudso n Group , an d"th e demeanin g leve l tha t J& B Enterprise s ha s bee n reduce dt o i n th e outcom e o f thi s awarde dcontract."'^' ' Amon g othe r things , th e Complainan t

allege da deterioratin g ga

p i n communicatio n betwee n both th e Hudso n Grou p an dMNAA , alac k o f responsivenes s o n th e part o f th e Hudso n Grou p t o thei r reques t for document s t o assis t

the mi n makin g busines s decisions , an dthei r exclusio n fro mdesig n discussion s o f th e sho e shin e stan dund l tha t produc t for Concours e B wa s complete dan dfoun dt o b e unacceptabl e in appearance , uncomfortabl e for customers , an duncomfortabl e for th e worker s t o performthei r duties."^' ' Th e Complainan t requeste dth e CEO' s assistanc e i n providin g th e Complainan t with anumbe r

o f document s an dinformation , includin g th e contrac t

awar ddocuments , th e Rhyth mShin e drawings , an dth e Respondent' s DB E policies
. Th e Complainan t

aske d"tha t

awritte n respons e includin g requeste ddocument s b e forwarde dt o J & B Enterprises , Inc
. withi n 1 0 day s t o begi n t o openl y an dappropriatel y discus s ou r concem s with onl y thos e

' ^ FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite m1 0 a t 12
. " FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite m8 a t 2-3
. 2 ° Id
. at 3
. ^ ' FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite m6 a t 4
. 2 2 Id
. " FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite m1 , attachment : Letter , datedAugust 20 , 2007 , fro

mJ& B t o Rau l Regalado , Presiden

t & CEO , MNAA
.that

hav e th e authorit y t o tak e correctiv e action."^ ^ Accordin g to th e Complainant , "MNA A faile dt o respon dt o th e Augus t

20 , 200 7 missive."^ * Accordin g t o Respondent , MNA A staf f too k variou s acdon s t o resolv e th e Complainant' s concem s in respons e t o Complainant' s Augus t 20 , 2007 , lette r

t o MNAA' s CEO
. O n o r abou t Augus t 21 , 2007 , Rebecc aRamsey , Manage r o f Properties , advise dth e Hudso n Grou p o f th e Complainant' s concem s an d nee dt o improv e th e busines s reladonship.^ ^ Sh e als o responde dt o th e Complainant' s reques t fo r specifi c information , an dattempte dt o arrang e ameetin g with th e Complainan t an dth e Hudso n Grou p t o resolv e outstandin g issues , whic h th e Complainan t decline dt o attend
. Additionally , Ambe r Gooding , Directo r

o f Busines s Diversit y Development , responde dt o th e Complainant' s reques t for informado n o n th e ACDB E program.^ ^ Joh n Howard , Assistan t

Vic e Presiden t

o f Properde s an dBusines s Developmen t Department s an dMNA A Propertie s Corporation , als o mad e severa l attempt s t o reac h th e Complainan t t o schedul e ameeting , bu t receive dn o response.^ ' Th e Complainant , an dthei r representative , Mar y Collier , ultimatel y agree dt o mee t with Mr
. Howar dprivatel y o n Septembe r 18 , 2007 , t o discus s thei r concems . Th e Complainan t informe dMr
. Howar d"tha t Hudso n ha dinforme dthe mthat Hudso n 'di dno t

negotiate ' sublease s an dthat th e [Complainant ] ha dt o accep t Hudson' s subleas e i f

the y wante dt o condnu e workin g at th e Airport."^ " Accordin g t o Mr
. Howard , th e Complainan t als o acknowledge dt o hi mtha t th e Hudso n Grou p di dmake a lo t o f effor t to see k th e Complainant' s opinion s i n th e beginnin g o n th e desig n o f th e ne w shoeshin e stan d insid e Concours e B' s CN N New s Store , bu t th e Hudso n Grou p ultimatel y di dno t incorporat e an y o f

th e Complainant' s requeste ddesig n elements.' " Accordin g t o Complainant , whe n Responden t faile dt o respon dt o thei r Augus t 20 , 2007 , lette r

t o MNAA' s CEO , Complainan t the n wrot e t o Mr
. Jame s H
. Cheek , II I (Chairman ) an dMs
. Rosaly n Carpente r o f th e MNA A Boar do f

Commissioner s o n Septembe r 21 , 2007 , i n a

n effor t t o resolv e thei r complaint.^ 2 j ^ thi s letter , whic h include dthre e attachments , th e Complainan t describe dthei r

experienc e i n attemptin g t o finalize asubleas e with th e Hudso n Group , an dprovide dthei r comment s an dissue s wit h th e draf t sublease
. Th e Complainant' s lette r t o th e Boar dstated , "Ou r positio n at

thi s momen t

i s tha t w e are sur e tha t

ther e ar e seriou s lega l ramification s o f th e action s an dfollow-u p take n b y bot h th e MNA A an dth e Hudso n Grou p tha t damag e th e inten t

o f fair an dequitabl e treatment , an da n equa l playin g fieldin opportunitie s availabl e t o ACDBEs."^' ' Th e Complainan t requeste dth e MNA A Boar dt o revie w thei r letter , t o hav e staf

f read y t o assis t

in resolvin g thei r

concems , an dt o hea r

bac k fro mth e Board.^" ^

"Id
. 2" ^ FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 a t 4
. " FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite m6 a t 4- 5 an dIte m10 , exhibi

t 17
. 2 ' FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite m8 an dIte m10 , exhibit s 2

0 & 21
. 2 ' FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 an dIte m1 0 a t 14
. ^°Id
. ^' FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite m7 a t 3
. ^ 2 FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 a t 4
. ^• ^ Id
. Se e attachment
. Letter , datedSeptembe r 21 , 2007 , fro

mJ& B t o MNA A Boar do f Commissioners ''Id
.O n Octobe r 13 , 2007 , Mr
. Howar do f th e MNA A staf

f attempte dt o reac h th e Complainan t t o schedul e a meetin g betwee n th e Hudso n Group , Olympi c Supply , MNA A an dth e Complainan t t o addres s th e issue s th e Complainan t

ha draise di n thei r

lette r t o th e Chairma n o f

MNAA' s Boar do f

Commissioners
. Thi s meeting , ultimatel y schedule dfor Novembe r

2 , 2007 , too k

plac e betwee n th e Complainan t an dMNA A staff , with tw o Hudso n Grou p representative s attendin g th e meetin g b y teleconference
. A t th e reques t

o f th e Complainant , Olympi c Supply , th e join t ventur e partne r

wit h Hudson , di dno t

attend
. Accordin g t o Respondent , th e Novembe r 2 , 200 7 meeting , wa s "a n effor t t o resolv e an y issue s s o tha t al l partie s coul d mov e forwar dwith asubleas e betwee n AMS-Olympi c Join t Ventur e (Hudso n Group ) an dJ& B Enterprises
. Th e meetin g conclude dwith , amon g othe r things , th e Hudso n Grou p agreein g t o wor k wit h th e Complainan t

o n th e redesig n o f

th e sho e shin e stan dinsid e th e CN N New s Stor e o n Concours e B , an d MNAA , agree dt o pa y 5 0 percen t o f th e cos t o f th e redesign , althoug h i t ha dn o lega l obligatio n to d o so.^ ^ Immediatel y followin g th e Novembe r 2 meeting , Mr
. Howar dreceive datelephon e cal l fro mth e Complainan t

(Mr
. Dmett) , informin g hi mtha t "J& B ha dn o desir e at

al l t o mov e forwar dwit

h tha t relationship " becaus e the y di dno t feel the y coul dtms t

Hudson
. Th e Responden t state dthat , base do n th e Complainant' s reactio n t o th e Novembe r 2 , 200 7 meedng , i t

decide dt o mov e Complainan t ou t o f th e CN N New s Stor e at

B-5 , an dint o ane w location
. Th e Responden t als o decide dt o tak e Complainan t ou t o f th e Hudso n Maste r

Concessio n Agreemen t

altogethe r

an dallo w Complainan t

t o operat e a s astand

alon e entity unde r

ane w concessio n agreement directl y with MNAA.'' ' Accordin g t o Respondent , "MNA A mad e thi s exceptio n t o it s Concession s Maste r Pla n an dHudson' s Maste r Leas e an dConcessio n Agreemen t

becaus e MNA A sa w i t

a s th e mos t

promisin g approac h t o kee p [Complainant ] operatin g a t th e Airport."^ ^ Responden t

state dtha t

it s Propert y Manage r

the n worke dwith Complainan t t o findstand-alon e locations
. Th e Airport

identifie dfour

location s o f

whic h tw o wer e foun dt o b e satisfactor y t o Complainant.^ ' Th e Responden t

subsequentl y foun dtha t

the y coul dno t

affec t amov e immediatel y becaus e th e shoeshin e stan di n locatio n B- 5 wa s constmcte di n suc h awa y tha t i t coul dno t

b e relocated , an dtha t

ane w stan d ha dt o b e constmcte do r

brough t i n fro manothe r

airport.'^ " Th e Complainan t als o ha ddecline dmovin g t o atemporar y location , statin g i t wante donl y t o mov e onc e t o apermanen t location."* ' A t

th e tim e o f

th e propose dmove . Responden t ha dcommunicate dt o th e Complainan t tha t i t planne dt o procur e ne w desig n service s for

ane w sho e shin e stand , an dt o complet e ane w concessio n agreement'* ^ In th e meantime , th e Hudso n Grou p als o continue dit s effort s t o reac h ou t t o th e Complainant
. In Febmar y 2008 , th e Hudso n Grou p wrot e Complainan t t o acknowledg e Complainant' s desir e t o relocat e it s busines s t o stand-alon e location s propose db y th e Airport , an dto reaffirmit s desir e t o retai n Complainan t

a s it s subtenan t

an dimprov e communications
. Hudso n requeste dComplainan t t o execut e a

^ ^ FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m7 a t 3-4
. ^ ^ Id
. a t 4
. "Id
. ^ * FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 0 a t 15
. ^'FA A Exhibi

t 1 , Ite m7 a t 4
. " " FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 0 a t 1 6 an dIte m6 a t 6
. ""FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , exhibit

3 6 an dIte m6 a t 6
. '•' ^ FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m10 , exhibit

26
.sublease , an doffere dit s assistanc e t o develo p it s merchandising line.'* ^ Accordin g t o Respondent ,

Complainan t

condnue dt o refus e t o sig n asubleas e with Hudson."'' * In Apri l 2008 , Responden t ha dnearl y complete ddraftin g ane w concessio n agreement , an dwa s awaitin g writte n confirmatio n o n Complainant' s preferre dlocation s an dinten t t o ente r int o adirec t

leas e agreemen t

with Respondent
. At

thi s time , th e Respondent' s CE O receive dalette r fro mth e Complainant' s lawye r

Anthon y Robinson , Minority Busines s Enterpris e Lega l Defens e an dEducado n Fun d(MBELDEF) , allegin g tha t MNA A an dth e Hudso n Grou p wer e i n violado n o f FAA' s DB E regulations , an drequeste dameetin g betwee n Respondent , th e Hudso n Group , an dComplainan t t o informall y resolv e th e legal complianc e matters."* ^ Accordin g t o Respondent , betwee n Apri l an dJun e 2008 , MNA A attempted , withou t success , t o coordinat e ameetin g wit

h Complainant' s attomey."* * O n Jun e 6 , 2008 , th e Responden t informe dth e Complainant' s lega l counsel , Anthon y Robinson , tha t i t woul dno t

b e renewin g th e Complainant' s leas e an dtha t th e leas e woul dtemiinat e upo n it s expirado n o n Augus t 31 , 2008
. Responden t

further advise d that MNA A woul db e issuin g aReques t for Proposal s (RFP ) for

asho e shin e concession s operator , an di t encourage dth e Complainan t t o participat e in th e RF P process . Responden t als o conveye dit s expectatio n tha t Complainan t

woul dcontinu e t o operat e th e sho e shin e concessio n o n amonth-to-mont h basi s unti l a ne w operator

wa s selected." " O n Jul y 30 , 2008 , Responden t receive dth e Complainant' s Part 1 6 complaint
. A s o f Novembe r

3 , 2008 , th e dat e o f

th e Respondent' s las t

pleading , th e Complainan t continue s t o operat e a t th e Airport

a s amonth-to-mont h tenan t at it s origina l stand-alon e C-Concours e locatio n an dat th e B- 5 location
. Th e Hudso n Grou p ha s permitte dth e Complainan t t o continu e operatin g insid e it s stor e a t B 5 withou t

asublease."* *

HI
. (B ) PROCEDURA L HISTOR Y

O n Jul y 30 , 2008 , Complainan t filedit s Part

1 6 Complain t

with 1 2 exhibits
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 ] O n Augus t

11 , 2008 , th e FA A issue dit s Nodc e o f Dockedng
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m3 ] O n Augus t

18 , 2008 , Responden t

filed aMotio n fo

r Extensio n o f

dm e t o answer . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 4 ]

"• ^ FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite m10 , exhibit

27
. ^ FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 0 a t 16
. "^'Id.atn
. ^'^Id
. " " Id
. Th e Directo r note s tha t the Shoe Shine Servic e Concessio n Request fo r Proposa l wa s postedo

n th e Respondent' s websit

e o n Marc h 4 , 2009
. Th

e nodc e statedtha

t proposal s wouldb e accepte duntil April 17 , 2009
. "•Md
.O n Septembe r 3 , 2008 , FA A grante dth e Respondent' s reques t fo r a n extensio n o f

time
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m5 ] O n Septembe r

4 , 2008 , th e Complainan t filedvi aemai l it s objecdo n t o th e extensio n request . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m5A ] O n Novembe r

3 , 2008 , Responden t

filedit s Answe r

an dMotio n t o Dismis s wit h Affidavit s i n Support
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Item s 6-10 ] O n Decembe r

11 , 2008 , Complainan t filed areques t

fo r a n extensio n o f

tim e t o reply
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m13]' ' O n Decembe r

23 , 2008 , Responden t filedit s objecdo n t o th e extensio n request . [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m14 ] O n Januar y 8 , 2009 , FA A denie dth e Complainant' s reques t fo r a n extensio n o f

dme
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m15 ] O n Januar y 9 , 2009 , Raymon dG
. Price , Esq. , notifie dth e partie s tha t h e doe s no t

represen t

th e Complainan t

an dwil l no t

b e representin g th e Complainan t i n thi s proceeding.^ " [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m16 ] O n Marc h 10 , 2009 , th e Directo r issue daNotic e o f

Extensio n o f

Tim e fo r

issuanc e o f

Director' s Determinatio n t o o n o r befor e Ma y 5 , 2009
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m17 ] O n Ma y 5 , 2009 , th e FA A Issue dit s Director' s Determination
. [FA A Exhibi t I , Ite m18 ] O n Jun e 3 , 2009 , Complainan t sough t a n extensio n o f

dm e t o file a n appea l o f th e Director' s Determinadon
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m19 ] O n Jun e 15 , 2009 , th e FA A extende dJ&B' s dm e t o appea l t o Jul y 8 , 2009
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m20 ] O n Jul y 8 , 2009 , Complainan t filedit s Appea l o f

th e Director' s Determination
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m 21 ] O n Jul y 8 , 2009 , Complainan t filedit s Motio n t o Supplemen t th e Record
. .[FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m22 ]

"* ' O n Januar y 6 , 200 9 whic h wa s after th e tim e t o reply , Complainan t submitte dalette r

t o th e FA A Part

1 6 Airport Proceeding s Docke t

regardin g thei r

forme r attorney' s reques t

fo r a n extensio n o f

time
. Th e lette r

wa s no t serve d properl y an dwa s withou t acertificat e o f

service
. Accordingly , th e improperl y filedlette r wa s no t considere db y th e Directo r in thi s determination , an di s no t include din th e Inde x o f

th e Administrativ e Record
. ^ ° O n February 9 , 2009 , Complainan t submitte dalette r

t o th e FA A Par t

1 6 Airpor t

Proceeding s Docket , regardin g thei r contractua l relationshi p with th e Hudso n Grou p an dRespondent
. O n Februar y 17 , 2009 , Complainant s submitte dalette r

t o th e FA A Par t

1 6 Airpor t

Proceeding s Docket , whic h include dachronolog y o f th e event s tha t th e Complainant s though t ha dasignifican t

rol e in th e revie w o f

th e fact s in thi s proceeding
. Neithe r o f thes e letter s wer e serve dproperl y an dboth wer e withou t acertificat e o f

service
. Accordingly , thes e tw o improperl y filedletter s wer e no t considere db y th e Directo r i n thi s determinatio n an dar e no t include di n th e Inde x o f

th e Administrativ e Record
.

1 0O n Jul y 14 , 2009 , Responden t filed aMotio n for

Immediat e Stay an dExtensio n o f Tim e T o Fil e Repl y t o Appeal
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m23 ] O n Jul y 16 , 2009 , Responden t filedit s Opposido n t o Complainant' s Motio n t o Supplemen t th e Record
. [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m24 ] O n Jul y 16 , 2009 , Responden t filed aModo n to Strik e Ne w Issue s Raise dfor th e Firs t Tim e o n Appeal
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m24 ] O n Jul y 14 , 2009 , Responden t Move dfor

a n Extensio n o f

Tim e t o Fil e it s Repl y t o th e Appea l unti l afte r th e Assistan t

Administrato r

ha dmle do n th e Motio n t o Supplemen t th e Recor dan dth e Motio n t o Strike Ne w Issue s Raise do n Appeal
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m23 ] On Jul y 17 , 2009 , Complainan t filedOppositio n t o Motio n for Stay an dExtensio n o f

Tim e t o Reply
. [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m34 ] O n Jul y 24 , 200 9 FA A state dtha t Complainant' s Modo n to Supplemen t th e Recor dan dRespondent' s Motio n t o Strik e Ne w Issue s Raise do n Appea l woul dlikel y b e decide da s par t o f th e Appea l an d grante dMNA A a

n extensio n o f

tim e und l Septembe r

2 , 2009 , t o file it s Repl y t o th e Appeal
. . [FAA Exhibi t

1 , Ite m25 ] O n Jul y 27 , 2009 , Complainan t filed aRepl y o n Modo n t o Supplemen t an dOppositio n t o Respondent' s Motio n t o Strik e Ne w Issue s o n Appeal
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m26 ] O n Jul y 31 , 2009 , Responden t filed aMotio n t

o Strike Complainant' s Unauthorize dReply
. Complainan t

ha s no t filedan y Oppositio n t o MNAA' s Motio n t o Strik e J&B' s Reply
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m27 ] O n Augus t

5 , 2009 , th e FA A grante dResponden t a n Extensio n o f

Tim e t o Fil e It s Repl y t o th e Appeal
. [FA A Exhibi t

1 , Ite m28 ] O n Septembe r

2 , 200 9 Responden t

filedit s Repl y to Complainant' s Appea l o f th e Director' s Determinatio n an drenewe dit 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 to 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 d Hudso n Grou p doe s no t

mee t FAA' s allocado n o f

wor k requirement s fo r

join t venture s involvin g ACDBEs
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m29 ] O n Septembe r

2 , 200 9 Responden t

filedit s ow n Modo n t o Supplemen t Th e Recor dO n Appeal
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m30 ] O n Septembe r

17 , 2009 , Complainan t

filedit s Respons e t o Respondent' s Motio n t o Supplemen t Th e Recor dO n Appeal
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m3 1 ] O n Octobe r

28 , 2009 , th e FA A issue daNodc e o f Extensio n o f

Time , nodfyin g partie s tha t th e FAA' s Fina l Agenc y Decisio n wil l b e issue do n o r befor e Febmar y 16 , 2010
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m32 ] O n Febmar y 16 , 2010 , th e FA A issue daNotic e o f Extensio n o f

Time , nodfyin g partie s that th e FAA' s Fina l Agenc y Decisio n wil l b e issue do n o r befor e Marc h 5 , 2010
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m33 ]

1 1

### IV . APPLICABL E FEDERA L LA W AN D POLIC Y

Th e Federa l rol e i

n civi l aviatio n ha s bee n augmente db y variou s legislativ e action s tha t authoriz e program s fo

r providin g federal fund s an dothe r assistanc e t o loca l communitie s for th e developmen t

o f airport facilities
. I n eac h suc h program , th e airport sponso r assume s certai n obligations , eithe r b y gran t agreemen t

o r b y restrictiv e covenant s in propert y deed s an dconveyance instmments , t o maintai n an doperat e it s airport facilitie s safel y an defficientl y an di n accordanc e wit h specifie dconditions
. Commitment s assumedb y airport sponsor s i

n propert y conveyance o r

gran t agreement s ar e importan t factor s in maintainin g ahig h degre e o f safet y an d efficienc y i n airport

design , constmction , operatio n an dmaintenance , a s wel l a s ensurin g th e publi c fai r an d reasonabl e acces s t o th e airport
. Th e followin g i s adiscussio n pertainin g t o th e Airport Improvemen t

Program , Airport

Sponso r Assurances , an dth e FA A Airport

Complianc e Program
. A
. Airpor t

Improvemen t

Progra m Titl e 4 9 US C § 47101 , e ? seq. , provide s for federal airport

financial assistanc e for

th e developmen t

o f public

us e airport s unde r

th e Airport

Improvemen t

Progra m(AIP ) establishe db y th e Airpor t an dAirway Improvemen t

Ac t o f 1982 , a s amended
. Titl e 4 9 US C § 47107 , e t seq. , set s fort

h assurance s t o whic h a

n airport sponso r agree s a s acondido n o f

receivin g federal financial assistance
. Upo n acceptanc e o f a n AI P grant , th e assurance s becom e abindin g obligatio n betwee n th e airport sponso r an dth e federal govemment . Th e assurance s mad e b y airport sponsor s i n AI P gran t

agreement s ar e importan t factor s i n maintainin g aviabl e nadona l airport

system . Part

1 6 o f Tid e 1 4 o f

th e Cod e o f

Federa l Regulation s (1 4 CF RPart 16 ) contain s th e mle s o f pracdc e for

filing complaint s involvin g federall y assiste dairports.^ ' Complaint s ma y b e filedunde r Part 1 6 allegin g violadon s o f th e federal gran t

assurance s require dunde r 4 9 US C § 4710 7 o r

§ 4711 3 fo

r airport s receivin g federal airport improvemen t

programfunds
. Th e standar dfederal gran t assurance s contai n acivi l right s assuranc e [No
. 30] , an daDisadvantage dBusines s Enterpris e (DBE ) Assuranc e [No
. 37] , a s wel l a s th e expres s requiremen t t o compl y with 4 9 CF RPart s 2 6 an d 23
. Tid e 4 9 US C § 4711 3 provide s authorit y fo r 4 9 CF RPart

2 6 an drequire s tha t

"Th e Secretary o f Transportatio n shal l tak e affimiativ e actio n t o ensur e tha t a n individua l i s no t

exclude dbecaus e o f

race , creed , color , nationa l origin , o r

se x fro mparticipadn g i n a n activity carrie dou t

with mone y receive dunde r agran t unde r thi s subchapter
. Th e Secretar y shal l prescrib e reguladon s necessar y t o carr y ou t thi s section. " Part 2 6 o f 4 9 CF Rcontain s th e Departmen t o f Transportado n reguladon s for it s DB E programwith respec t t o Departmen t

o f Transportation-assiste dcontracts.^ ^ Part 2 6 applie s t o recipient s o f Federa l Airport

Fund s authorize db y 4 9 US C § 47101 , etseq.^ ^ Par t 2 6 doe s no t

appl y t o contract s i n whic h th e Departmen t o f

' ' Se e FA A Rule s o f

Practic e fo r

Federall y Assiste dAirpor t Enforcemen t

Proceedings , 6 1 Fed
. Reg
. 5399 8 (Octobe r 16 , 1996)
. ^ 2 Se e Participatio n by Disadvantage dBusines s Enterprise s in th e Departmen t o f Transportatio n Financia l Assistance Programs , 6 4 Fed
. Reg
. 509 6 (February 2 , 1999)
. " Se e 4 9 CF R§ 26.3(a ) (3)
.

1 2Transportado n doe s no t participat e in financial assistance.^" * Par t 2 6 replace d4 9 CF RPar t 2 3 for DBE s in Departmen t

o f Transportation-assiste dcontracts ; DB E airport concession s provision s o f 4 9 CF RPart

2 3 wer e revise dan dupdate di n th e Department' s regulatio n entitle dPart 23-Participatio n o f

Disadvantage dBusines s Enterpris e i

n Airpor t Concessions.^ ^ Th e section s o f

4 9 CF RPart s 2 3 an d2 6 applicabl e t o thi s Part 1 6 proceedin g includ e § § 23.1 , 23.3 , 23.9 , 23.11 , 23.57 , 23.59 , 23.61 , 23.79 , 26.7 , 26.101 , an d26.105
. 4 9 CF R§ 23. 1 set s fort

h th e objecdve s o f

4 9 CF RPart

23 : Thi s par t seek s t o achiev e severa l objectives: (a ) T o ensur e nondiscriminatio n i n th e awar dan dadministratio n o f opportunide s fo r

concession s b y airport s receivin g DO T financial assistance ; (b ) T o creat e aleve l playin g fieldo n whic h ACDBE s can compet e fairl y for opportunitie s for concessions ; (c) T o ensur e tha t

th e Department' s ACDB E progra mi s narrowl y tailore di n accordanc e with applicabl e law ; (d ) T o ensur e tha t

onl y firms tha t

fully mee t

thi s part' s eligibility standard s ar e permitte dt o participat e a s ACDBEs ; (e) T o hel p remov e barrier s t o th e participatio n o f ACDBE s in opportunitie s for concession s at airport s receivin g DO T financial assistance ; an d (f ) T o provid e appropriat e flexibility t o airport s receivin g DO T financial assistanc e in establishin g an di n providin g opportunide s for ACDBEs
. 4 9 CF R§ 23. 3 define s th e term s use di n Part 23 : Airpor t Concessio n Disadvantage dBusines s Enterpris e (ACDBE ) i s define da s aconcessio n that i s afor-profi t smal l busines s conce m(1 ) tha t i s a t leas t 5 1 percen t

owne db y on e o r

mor e individual s wh o ar e both sociall y an deconomicall y disadvantage dor , i n th e cas e o f acorporation , i n whic h 5 1 percen t o f th e stoc k i s owne db y on e o r mor e suc h individuals ; an d(2 ) whos e managemen t an ddail y busines s operadon s ar e controlle db y on e o r mor e o f th e sociall y an deconomicall y disadvantage dindividual s wh o ow n it
. Join t Venture i s define da s a

n associatio n o f

a n ACDB E firman don e o r mor e othe r

firms t o carr

y ou t asingle , for-profi t busines s enterprise , for

whic h th e partie s combin e thei r property , capital , efforts , skill s an d knowledge , an din whic h th e ACDB E i s responsibl e for adistinct , clearl y define dportio n o f th e work o f th e contrac t an dwhos e share s i n th e capita l contribution , control , management , risks , an dprofit s o f th e join t ventur e ar e commensurat e with it s ownershi p interest
. Join t ventur e entitie s ar e no t

certifie da s ACDBEs.^ *

^" ^ Se e 4 9 CF R§ 26.3(d)
. " Se e 7 0 Fed
. Reg
. 1449 6 (Marc h 22 , 2005)
. ^ ^ Se e als o DOT/FA

A ACDB E Join

t Ventur e Guidance , distribute dJul

y 17 , 2008
. Join

t ventur e entides , themselves , ar

e not cerdfiedas ACDBEs
. I

n orde r t o coun t toward s ACDB E participation , on e o r mor e o f th e join t ventur e participant s must

b e acertifiedACDBE
. Eve n i f the join t ventur e i s mor e tha n 51 % owne

db y a n ACDB E firm, i t i s not certifiedas a

n ACDB E because , by definition , ajoin t ventur e i s a n associatio n o

f firms, no t

1 34 9 CF R§ 23. 9 provide s th e nondiscriminatio n requirement s for recipient s with airport

concession s programs . (a ) A s arecipient , yo u mus t mee t th e non-discriminatio n requirement s provide di n part 26 , § 26. 7 wit

h respec t t o th e awar dan dperformanc e o f an y concessio n agreement , managemen t contrac t o r subcontract , purchas e o r

leas e agreement , o r

othe r agreement

covere db y thi s subpart
. (b ) Yo u mus t

als o tak e al l necessary an dreasonabl e step s t o ensur e nondiscriminatio n i n th e awar d an dadministratio n o f

contract s an dagreement s covere db y thi s part . 4 9 CF R§ 26. 7 states : (a ) Yo u mus t

neve r exclud e an y perso n fro mparticipatio n in , den y an y perso n th e benefit s of , o r otherwis e discriminat e agains t anyon e i n connectio n wit h th e awar dan dperformanc e o f an y contrac t covere db y thi s part

o n th e basi s o f

race , color , sex , o r

nationa l origin
. (b ) I n administerin g you r DB E program , yo u mus t not , directl y o r

throug h contractua l o r

othe r arrangements , us e criteri ao r method s o f

administratio n tha t

hav e th e effec t

o f defeatin g o r substantiall y impairin g accomplishmen t o f th e objecdve s o f

th e programwith respec t t o individual s o f

aparticular

race , color , se x o r

nationa l origin
. Th e regulado n i

n 4 9 CF R§ 26. 7 prohibit s no t onl y intendona l discriminatio n bu t als o action s tha t

hav e th e effec t o f discriminatin g agains t

individual s o n on e o f

th e prohibite dground s (e.g. , tha t hav e adisparat e advers e impac t o n member s o f

aparticula r

group)
. Th e languag e o f paragrap h (b ) i s similar

t o tha t i n th e Department' s longstandin g Tid e V I regulatio n (4 9 CF R§ 21.5(b)(2 ) an di s consisten t wit h cour t

interpretation s o f nondiscriminatio n statute s i n othe r contexts.^ ' Therefore , t o analyz e th e allegation s i n thi s case , w e wil l conside r tw o primar y theorie s o f

discriminado n unde r

Tid e VI : intentiona l discriminatio n o r disparat e treatment , an ddisparat e impac t o r advers e effects
. Th e regulation s i n 4 9 CF R§ § 23.5 9 an d23.5 7 provid e guidanc e to recipient s o n th e rol e o f th e statutory 1 0 percen t goa l i n th e ACDB E program , an do n th e situatio n wher e arecipien t fall s short

o f meetin g it s overal l goals
. Th e regulatio n i n 4 9 CF R§ 23.5 9 states : (a ) Th e statut e authorizin g th e ACDB E progra mprovide s that , excep t t o th e exten t

th e Secretary determine s otherwise , no t les s than 1 0 percen t

o f concessio n businesse s ar e t o b e ACDBEs
. (b ) Thi s 1 0 percen t

goa l i s a n aspirationa l goa l a

t th e nadona l level , whic h th e Departmen t use s a s a too l i n evaluatin g an dmonitorin g DBEs ' opportunitie s t o participat e i n airport concessions
. individuals
. Th

e regulation state s a s follows : § 26.73(e) A n eligibl e DB E fir

mmus t b e owne db y individual s wh

o ar e socially an deconomicall y disadvantaged
. Excep

t a s provide di

n thi s paragraph , afirmtha t i s n o owne db y suc h individuals , but

insteadi s ownedb

y another firm- eve n aDB E firm- canno t

be a n eligibl e DBE
. Therefore , ajoin t ventur e cannot b e certifieda s a

n ACDBE
.

" Se e Supplementa

l Notic e o f Rulemaking 6

2 F R29548 , 2955 1 (Ma

y 30 , 1997 ) citin g Alexande r v. Choate , 469 U.S
. 287 (1985) ; Elston v. Talladeg aBoar do f Education , 997 F.2

d139 4 (11 * Cir. , 1993)
.
1 4(c ) Th e nationa l 1 0 percen t aspirationa l goa l doe s no t authoriz e o r

requir e recipient s t o se t

overal l or concession-specifi c goal s a t th e 1 0 percen t

level , o r an y othe r

particula r

level , o r t o tak e an y special administrativ e step s i f

thei r goal s ar e abov e o r

belo w 1 0 percent . Th e regulado n in § 23.57(a ) states : (a ) Yo u canno t

b e penalized , o r

treate db y th e Departmen t a s bein g in noncomplianc e wit h thi s part , simpl y becaus e you r

ACDB E participatio n fall s short o f you r overal l goals
. Yo u ca n b e penalize d o r treate da s bein g i n non-compliance onl y i f yo u hav e faile dt o administe r you r ACDB E progra m i n goo dfaith
. Titl e 4 9 CF R§ 23.6 1 prohibit s th e us e o f quota s o r set-aside s fo r

ACDB E participation
. Tid e 4 9 CF R§ 23.7 9 doe s no t permi t recipient s t o us e loca l geographi c preferences
. Th e sectio n states : A s arecipien t

yo u mus t

no t us e alocal geographi c preference
. Fo r purpose s o f

thi s section , aloca

l geographi c preferenc e i s an y requiremen t tha t give s a n ACDB E locate di n on e plac e (e.g
. you r loca l area ) a

n advantag e ove r

ACDBE s fro mothe r

place s i n obtainin g busines s as , o r with aconcessio n at

you r airport
. Finally , th e reguladon s i n 4 9 CF R§ § 23.11 , an d26.10 1 an d26.10 5 cove r FAA' s enforcemen t

authoride s i n th e even t FA A finds th e recipien t

in non-compliance
. Th e regulatio n in 4 9 CF R§ 23.1 1 states : Th e complianc e an denforcemen t provision s o f

par t 2 6 (§ § 26.10 1 an d26.10 5 throug h 26.107 ) appl y to thi s part in th e sam e wa y tha t

the y appl y t o FA A recipient s an dprogram s unde r part 26
. Th e regulatio n i

n § 26.101(a ) states : (a ) I f yo u fai l t o compl y with an y requiremen t o f thi s part , yo u ma y b e subjec t t o formal enforcemen t action s unde r

§ 26.10 3 o r

§ 26.10 5 o r

appropriat e progra msanctions b y th e concerne doperatin g administration , suc h a s th e suspensio n or terminatio n o f

Federa l funds , o r

refusal t o approv e projects , grants , o r contract s unti l deficiencie s ar e remedied
. Progra msanction s ma y include.
. .i n th e cas e o f th e FA A program , action s consisten t with 4 9 U.S.C
. 47106(d) , 47111(d) , an d47122..
. Th e regulator y provisio n in § 26.10 5 specificall y provide s for enforcemen t

action s in FA A programs , a s follows : (a ) Complianc e with al l requirement s o f thi s par t b y airport

sponsor s an dothe r

recipient s o f

FAA financial assistanc e i s enforce dthroug h th e procedure s o f Titl e 4 9 o f

th e Unite dState s Code , includin g 4 9 U.S.C
. 47106(d) , 47111(d) , an d47122 , an dreguladon s implementin g them
. (b ) Th e provision s o f

§ 26.103(b ) an dthi s sectio n appl y t o enforcemen t action s i n FA A programs . (c ) An y perso n wh o know s o f aviolatio n o f

thi s par t b y arecipien t

o f FA A fund s may file acomplain t unde r 1 4 CF Rpart

1 6 with th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f Chie f Counsel
.

1 5B
. Airpor t Sponso r Assurance s A s aconditio n preceden t t o providin g airport

developmen t

assistanc e unde r

th e Airport

Improvemen t

Program , 4 9 US C § 47107 , e t

seq. , th e Secretar y o f

Transportatio n and , b y extension , th e FA A mus t receive certai n assurance s fro mth e airport sponsor . Titl e 4 9 US C § 47107(a ) set s fort h th e statutory sponsorshi p requirement s t o whic h a

n airport sponso r receivin g Federa l financial assistanc e mus t agree . Th e FA A ha s astatutory mandat e t o ensur e tha t airport owner s compl y wit h thes e sponso r assurances . FA A Orde r 5190.6A , Airpor t

Complianc e Requirement s (Order) , issue do n Octobe r 2 , 1989 , provide s th e policie s an dprocedure s t o b e followe db y th e FA A i n carryin g ou t it s legislativel y mandate dfunction s relate dt o federall y obligate dairport owners ' complianc e with thei r sponso r assurances . Th e FA A consider s i t inappropriat e t o provid e Federa l assistanc e for improvement s t o airport s wher e th e benefit s o f suc h improvement s wil l no t

b e full y realize ddu e t o inheren t restriction s o n aeronautica l activities
. Federa l Gran t

Assurance s No
. 3 0 an dNo
. 3 7 appl y t o th e circumstance s se t fort h i n thi s complaint
. Gran t Assuranc e No
. 3 0 states : I t [th e airport

recipient ] wil l compl y with suc h mle s a s ar e promulgate dt o assur e tha t n o perso n shall , o n th e ground s o f

race , creed , color , nationa l origin , sex , age , o r handica p b e exclude dfro m participatin g in an y activit y conducte dwit h o r benefitin g fro mfund s receive dfro mthi s grant . Thi s assuranc e obligate s th e sponso r for th e perio ddurin g whic h Federa l financial assistanc e i s extende dto th e program , excep t

wher e Federa l financial assistanc e i s t o provide , o r i s i n th e for

mo f persona l property o r

rea l propert y o r

interes t therei n o r

stmcture s o r

improvement s thereo n i n whic h cas e th e assuranc e obligate s th e sponso r o r any transfere e for

th e longe r

o f th e followin g periods : (a ) the.perio d durin g whic h th e property i s use dfor apurpos e for

whic h Federa l financial assistanc e i s extended , o r for anothe r purpos e involvin g th e provisio n o f similar service s o r

benefits , o r

(b ) th e perio ddurin g whic h th e sponso r

retain s ownershi p o r

possessio n o f

th e property . Gran t Assuranc e No
. 3 7 states : Th e recipien t

shal l no t discriminat e o n th e basi s o f race , color , nationa l origi n o r se x in th e awar dan d performanc e o f

an y DOT-assiste dcontrac t o r i n th e administratio n o f

it s DB E programo r

th e requirement s o f

4 9 CF RPart

26
. Th e recipien t

shal l tak e al l necessar y an dreasonabl e step s unde r 4 9 CF RPart 2 6 t o ensur e non-discriminatio n i n th e awar dan dadministratio n o f DOT-assiste dcontracts . Th e recipient' s DB E program , a s require db y 4 9 CF RPart 26 , an da s approve db y DOT , i s incorporate db y referenc e i n thi s agreement . Implementatio n o f thi s progra mi s alegal obligatio n an d failure t o carry ou t

it s term s shal l b e treate da s aviolatio n o f thi s agreement . Upo n notificatio n to th e recipien t o f it s failur e t o carr y ou t

it s approve dprogram , th e Departmen t ma y impos e sanctions a s provide dfor

unde r Par t 2 6 an dmay , i n appropriat e cases , refe r th e matte r

for enforcemen t

unde r 1 8 US C 100 1 and/o r

th e Progra mFrau dCivi l Remedie s Ac t o f 198 6 (3 1 US C 3801)
. C
. Th e FA A Airpor t

Complianc e Progra m Th e FA A discharge s it s responsibilitie s for ensurin g airport

owners ' complianc e with thei r Federa l obligation s throug h it s Airport

Complianc e Program
. Th e FAA' s airport complianc e effort s ar e base don th e obligation s a n airpor t owne r accept s whe n receivin g Federa l gran t fund s o r th e transfe r

o f Federa l property for

airport 1 6purposes . Thes e obligation s ar e incorporate din gran t agreement s an dinstmment s o f conveyanc e i n orde r

t o protec t th e public' s interes t

i n civi l aviatio n an dt o ensur e complianc e wit h Federa l laws
. Th e FA A Airport

Complianc e Progra mi s designe dt o ensur e th e availability o f anationa l syste mo f

saf e an d properl y maintaine dpublic-us e airport s operate din amanne r consisten t

with th e airport

owners ' Federa l obligation s an dth e public' s investmen t i n civi l aviation
. Th e Airport

Complianc e Progra mdoe s no t contro l o r

direc t th e operatio n o f

airports
. Rather , i t

monitor s th e administratio n o f

th e valuabl e right s pledge db y airpor t sponsor s to th e peopl e o f th e Unite dState s in exchang e for monetary grant s an ddonation s o f Federa l propert y t o ensur e tha t th e publi c interes t

i s bein g served
. FAA Orde r 5190.6A , Airpor t

Complianc e Requirement s (Order ) set s fort h policie s an dprocedure s for th e FA A Airpor t Complianc e Program
. Th e Orde r i s no t regulatory an di s no t

controllin g with regar dt o airport sponso r conduct
. Rather , i t

establishe s th e policie s an dprocedure s t o b e followe db y FA A personne l i n carryin g ou t th e FAA' s responsibilitie s fo r ensurin g airport

compliance
. It

provide s basi c guidanc e for FA A personne l in interpretin g an dadministerin g th e variou s continuin g commitment s mad e t o th e Unite dState s b y airport owner s a s aconditio n o f

receivin g agran t

o f Federa l fund s o r

th e conveyanc e o f

Federa l property for

airport purposes . Th e Orde r

analyze s th e variou s obligation s se t fort h i n th e standar dairport

sponso r assurances , addresse s th e natur e o f

thos e assurances , addresse s th e applicatio n o f thos e assurance s i n th e operatio n o f public-us e airports , an dfacilitate s interpretatio n o f th e assurance s b y FA A personnel
. Th e FA A Complianc e Progra mi s designe dt o achiev e voluntar y complianc e wit h federal obligation s accepte d b y owner s and/o r

operator s o f

public-us e airport s develope dwit h FAA-administere dassistance
. Therefore , i n addressin g allegations o f

noncompliance , th e FA A wil l mak e adeterminatio n a s t o whethe r a n airport sponso r i s currentl y in complianc e with th e applicabl e federal obligations
. Consequently , th e FA A wil l conside r th e successfu l actio n b y th e airport t o cur e any allege do r

potentia l pas t

violatio n o f

applicabl e federal obligatio n t o b e ground s for

dismissa l o f

suc h allegations.^ ^ Th e Orde r

cover s al l aspect s o f

th e airport

complianc e programexcep t enforcemen t

procedures , whic h a s reference dabov e ar e at

FA A Rule s o f

Practic e fo r

Federally-Assiste dAirpor t Enforcemen t

Proceeding s (1 4 CF RPart 16)
. Unde r

4 9 CF R§ 26.105(b) , any perso n wh o know s o f aviolatio n o f

Par t 2 6 b y arecipien t

o f FA A fund s ma y fil e acomplain t unde r 1 4 CF RPart

1 6 with th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f Chie f Counsel
. O n Febmar y 22 , 2002 , th e Director o f th e Offic e o f

Airport Safet y an dStandard s (no w th e Directo r o f Airport Complianc e an dFiel dOperations ) delegate dt o th e Deputy Assistan t Administrato r

for Civi l Right s th e authority t o prepar e an dissu e director' s determination s pursuan t t o 1 4 CF RPar t

16.^ ' A t th e time that

th e Director' s Determinatio n wa s issued , th e Deputy Assistan t Administrato r

for Civi l Right s positio n wa s vacant , withou t a n actin g official , an dth e Directo r o f Airpor t Complianc e an dFiel dOperation s wa s actin g a s th e decisio n maker
.

^ * Se e e.g . Wilso

n Ai r Cente r v . Memphi s an dShelb

y Count y Airpor t Authority , FA

A Docke t No
. 16-99-10 , (8/30/01) ; uphel

di n Wilso n Ai r Center , LL

C v. FAA , 37 2 F.3 d80

7 (C.A
. 6
. June 23
. 2004)
. Se e Albuquerque Vale

t Parkin g Service , Norm

aG
. Morri s an dDavi dPowdrell , v . Cit y o f Albuquerque , Albuquerque , NM, FA

A Docke t No
. 16-01-01 ; upheldmAlbuquerque Vale t Parkin g Servic e v. FAA

, Civ
. No
. 03

- 57 5 (D.C
. Ne

w Mexico , Marc

h 31 , 2004)
.

1 7D
. Appea l t o th e Associat e Administrato r

Pursuan t t o 1 4 CFR , Part

16 , §16.33 , th e Associat e Administrato r for Airport s wil l issu e afinal decisio n o n appea l fromth e Director' s Determination , withou t ahearing , wher e ahearin g i s no t require db y statut e an di s no t otherwis e mad e availabl e b y th e FAA
. I n appeals , i t i s th e Associat e Administrator' s responsibilit y t o determin e whethe r (1 ) th e finding s o f

fac t mad e b y th e Directo r

ar e supporte db y a preponderanc e o f

reliable , probativ e an dsubstantia l evidence , an d(2 ) 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
. [Se e e.g . Rick s v Millingto n Municipa l Airport.FA A Docke t

No
. 16-98-19 , p.2 1 (12/30/99 ) an d1 4 CFR , Part 16 , §16.227 ] A genera l delegatio n wa s issue do n Febmar y 22 , 2002 , fro mth e Associat e Administrato r for Airport s t o th e Assistan t Administrato r

fo r Civi l Right s for

issuanc e o f

final agenc y decisions fo r Par t 1 6 action s involvin g allegations o f

civi l right s violations
.

V
. PROCEDURA L MATTER S A
. Motion s t o Supplemen t th e Recor dO n Appea l Prio r t o addressin g th e merit s o f thi s appea l ther e ar e anumbe r o f pendin g procedura l matter s whic h requir e resolution
. i
. Motion s t o Supplemen t th e Recor do n Appea l O n Jul y 8 , 2009 , Complainan t filed aModo n to Supplemen t Th e Recor dO n Appea l pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R
. sectio n 16.19(a)
. [FAA Exhibi t 1 , Ite m22 ] Complainant s i n it s motio n seek s t o ente r int o th e recor dth e followin g documents : (1 ) Letter s date dJanuar y 5 , 2009 , Febmar y 9 , 200 9 an dFebmar y 17 , 2009 , from J& B Enterprise s t o th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , Offic e o f Chie f Counsel , and ; (2 ) Lette r

date d Jun e 19 , 2008 , fro mAnthon y W
. Robinson , Attorney , t o Robert C
. Watson , Attomey , an d(3 ) Lette r dated , January 9 , 2009 , Lette r wit h Attachment s date dJanuary 9 , 2009 , fro mMar aE
. Rosale s t o Michae l Freilich
. Id
. O n Jul y 16 , 2009 , Responden t filedit s Oppositio n t o Complainant' s Motio n t o Supplemen t Th e Recor do n Appeal
. Subsequentl y o n Jul y 27 , 2009 , Complainan t filed aRepl y o n Motio n t o Supplemen t

Th e Recor dan dOppositio n t o Respondent' s Motio n t o Strik e Ne w Issue s O n Appeal
. O n Septembe r

12 , 2009 , Responden t

filedRespondent' s Motio n to Strik e Complainant' s Unauthorize dRepl y to Respondent' s Oppositio n t o Complainant s Motio n t o Supplemen t Th e Record
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Item s 22-24 , 26-27 ] Th e Assistan t

Administrato r

ha s reviewe dth e documents sough t t o b e entere di n th e recor db y Complainan t

an dconsidere dth e objection s o f Respondent
. Th e document s sough t t o b e entere db y th e Complainan t

ar e correspondenc e previousl y submitte dt o th e FA A o r t o Responden t

i n regar dt o thi s matter . Th e Assistan t

Administrato r

finds i t i s informatio n o f

agenera l natur e regardin g Complainant' s allegations alread y containe di n th e record
. Responden t wil l no t b e undul y prejudice db y it s inclusio n an d consideration
. Therefore , th e Complainant' s Motio n T o Supplemen t Th e Recor dO n Appea l i s grante d an dRespondent' s Motio n i n Oppositio n i s denied
. O n Septembe r

2 , 2009 , Septembe r

2 , 2009 , Responden t

filed aMotio n T o Supplemen t Th e Recor dO n Appeal , pursuan t

t o 1 4 C.F.R
. sectio n 16.19(a)
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m30 ] Responden t

seek s t o ente r

int o 1 8th e recor dth e Affidavi t o f Rebecc aRamsey , Manage r o f Properties , Metropolita n Nashvill e Airport Authority , an dfou r

accompanyin g exhibits
. O n Septembe r 17 , 2009 , th e Complainan t filedit s Respons e T o Respondent' s Motio n t o Supplemen t Th e Recor do n Appeal
. Th e Complainan t object s t o inclusio n o f Respondent' s document s an dexhibit s o n th e ground s that the y ar e irrelevan t

t o th e issue s presente do n appeal
. Th e Assistan t

Administrato r

ha s reviewe dth e document s sough t t o b e entere dan dfinds the y pertai n t o th e RFP s issue db y Responden t an devidenc e no t

availabl e earlie r

bu t connecte dt o Complainants ' ne w allegations
. Accordingly , th e Assistan t Administrato r

conclude s tha t

th e material s ar

e relevan t t o th e issue s raise dherei n an dtha t Complainan t

wil l no t b e undul y prejudice db y it s inclusion , therefore
. Respondent' s Motio n T o Supplemen t th e Recor dO n Appea l i s als o granted
. ii
. Respondent' s Motio n t o Strik e Ne w Issue s Raise dO n Appea l O n Jul y 16 , 2009 , Responden t filedit s Oppositio n t o Complainant' s Motio n t o Supplemen t th e Recor d O n Appea l an dMotio n t o Strik e Ne w Issue s Raise dO n Appeal
. [FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m24 ] In it s motio n th e Responden t

request s tha t

th e Assistan t

Administrato r

strik e fro mconsideratio n tw o issue s containe d i n Complainant' s Appea l o f Director' s Determinatio n filedJul y 8 , 2009
. Th e Responden t contend s that Complainant , for

th e first tim e o n appeal , allege dtha t i t wa s th e victi mo f

retaliation
. Responden t

als o assert s tha t

Complainan t

ha s neve r

allege dthat

th e join t ventur e betwee n Hudso n an dOlympi c doe s no t conformt o th e FAA' s Join t Ventur e Guidance
. Id
. Retaliatio n Clai mRevie w Th e Complainant s hav e attribute dconsiderabl e attentio n i n thei r appea l document s t o th e clai m tha t th e Directo r

erre di n failin g t o glea n tha t Complainan t

wa s th e victi mo f

retaliatio n i n violatio n o f

4 9 C.F.R
. §§23.1 1 an d26.109
. Th e Assistan t Administrato r

ha s carefull y reviewe dth e appeal s document s provide db y Complainan t t o suppor t

it s clai mo f

retaliation
. Th e Assistan t

Administrato r

ha s summarize dbelo w som e o f th e varie dfactua l claim s an dlega l issue s regardin g retaliatio n raise db y Complainan t i n it s appea l document :
1
. Retaliatio n i s afor mo f discriminatio n an dth e Directo r "simpl y faile dt o recogniz e o r acknowledg e th e complainant' s allegation, " encompasse dmor e tha n disparat e impac t an d disparat e treatmen t

discrimination.""^ ^
2
. Th e ACDB E Progra mregulation s specificall y prohibi t retaliation , a s 4 9 C.F.R
. sectio n 23.1 1 specificall y incorporate dth e complianc e an denforcemen t provision s foun di n 4 9 C.F.R
. sectio n 26.109
. Thus , th e Director , i n ligh t o f th e regulation , shoul dinherentl y hav e evaluate dth e action s o f th e Complainan t

an dth e Responden t

a s i t relate dt o retaliation
. * '

6 0 FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 1 a t 4 "'Id
. a t 5
.
1 93
. Th e Complainan t reason s tha t

mor e tha n a n inferenc e o f retaliatio n i s warrante db y th e statement s o f

Ambe r Gooding , Directo r

o f Busines s Development , an dJoh n Howard , Jr. , Assistan t Vice-Presiden t

o f Propertie s an dBusines s Development
. I t claim s thos e statement s ar e irrefutabl e proo f tha t th e Responden t

decide dt o publicl y bi dth e shoeshin e concessio n o n Jun e 6
. 2008 , solel y becaus e i t receive dth e Apri l 15 , 200 8 lette r fro mJ&B' s attorne y allegin g tha t

MNA A an dHudso n wer e i n violatio n o f th e DB E progra m regulations.^ 2 Complainan t

furthe r assert s tha t

Joh n Howard , Jr. , Assistan t Vice-Presiden t

o f Properties , admitte dh e wa s "wel l alon g i n draftin g ane w concession s agreemen t wit h J& B Enterprises , bu t

stoppe dwhe n h e receive dth e lette r fro mComplainant' s attorne y statin g tha t MNA A an dHudso n wer e i n violatio n o f th e 4 9 CF RPart s 2 3 an d26. "
5
. Complainan t

argue s tha t

th e affidavit s o f

Joh n Howard , Jr. , an dAmbe r Goodin g offe r

n o othe r rational e tha n th e receip t o f Complainant' s attorney' s lette r a s areaso n fo r

failin g t o schedul e concession s contrac t discussio n meetin g betwee n MNA A an dJ& B Enterprises.^" *
6
. Complainan t

argue s tha t

i t ha s establishe daprim afaci e cas e o f retaliatio n b y showin g tha t i t (1 ) engage di n statutoril y protecte dexpressio n (it s attorney' s lette r o f complaint) , (2 ) i t wa s subjecte dt o a"materiall y adverse " ac t (th e terminatio n o f

it s concession' s agreement) , an d(3 ) ther e wa s acausa l relationshi p betwee n th e protecte dactivit y an dth e materiall y advers e actio n take n b y Responden t (publi c bi do f

th e shoeshin e concession).* ^ Complainan t

als o assert s tha t

th e causa l relationshi p i s establishe db y th e clos e tempora l proximit y (les s tha n tw o months ) betwee n J&B' s attorney' s lette r an dth e decisio n t o terminat e th e existin g concession s agreement.* * Complainan t

als o reason s tha t

th e Responden t

i s liabl e fo r

retaliatio n becaus e i t

ha s faile d t o articulat e alegitimate , non-discriminator y explanatio n fo r it s actio n i n terminatin g it s direc t concession s relationshi p wit h J& B Enterprises
. Complainan t argue s tha t Respondent' s purporte dnondiscriminator y reaso n (inabilit y t o schedul e ameetin g wit h Complainant ) doe s no t

rationall y explai n wh y Complainant' s contrac t wa s terminated
. Complainan t

assert s tha t

i t wa s read y t o discus s th e revise dleas e at an y tim e durin g th e Id
. a t 6
. 6 2
" Id
. a t 5
. ' ^ Id
. at 8
. 6 5 Id
. '^''Id
.

2 0eigh t mont h perio dleadin g u p t o th e notic e o f th e terminatio n o f

it s lease , bu t

th e Responden t

di dno t com e t o th e table.* ^
9
. Th e Complainan t

assert s tha t

th e Directo r

faile dt o recognize , interpre t an dadjudicat e th e clai mo f retaliatio n i t

clearl y presente di n it s factua l allegation s a t th e investigativ e stage . Consequently , Complainan t insist s tha t

th e Assistan t

Administrato r

shoul dasses s a s erro r th e Director' s oversigh t an dfin dResponden t

i n violatio n o f

4 9 C.F.R
. §§23.1 1 an d26.109
. A s astartin g point , th e Assistan t Administrato r

ha s chronicle dabove , i n som e detail, th e Complainant' s numerou s ne w lega l an dfactual argument s regardin g allege dretaliation , specificall y for th e purpos e o f showin g ho w inappropriat e i t woul db e at

th e appea l stag e o f

thes e proceeding s t o attemp t t o undertak e resolutio n o f

suc h comple x factual an dlegal issues
. Ha dth e Complainan t

articulate dtha t

i t wa s th e victi mo f

retaliatio n i n it s initia l complaint , the n i t woul d hav e bee n incumben t

upo n th e Responden t

t o carefiill y evaluat e it s action s an dsubmi t areasone d respons e with specifi c evidentiar y support . I t canno t b e assume dtha t

th e presen t

recor di s full y develope dwith regar dt o informatio n Responden t believe s relevan t

regardin g aclai mo f

retaliation , an dto whic h i t wa s neve r

give n th e opportunit y t o address
. Likewis e th e Director , i n th e appropriat e fomm durin g th e investigativ e stage , woul dhav e ha dth e opportunit y t o flilly examin e th e claim s an devidenc e o f both partie s an dmak e further exploratio n int o event s an ddocumentatio n h e though t t o b e relevan t

o n th e issue
. Th e Assistan t

Administrato r

remind s th e Complainan t that , in investigatin g acomplain t unde r Part 16 , th e Directo r may includ e arevie w o f th e pleading s o f

th e parties , a s supplemente db y any informa l investigatio n th e FA A consider s necessary , an db y additiona l informatio n furnishe db y th e partie s at FAA request . Th e FA A ma y rel y entirel y o n th e complain t an dresponsiv e pleadings
. Eac h part y i s require dt o file al l document s tha t

i t consider s sufficien t

t o presen t

al l relevan t

fact s an dargumen t

necessar y for

th e FA A t o determin e whethe r th e sponso r

i s in compliance.* * Th e inten t o f 1 4 CF R§ 16.2 9 i s tha t

th e FAA wil l b e abl e t o decid e th e merit s o f acas e b y lookin g solel y at th e record
. Afte r

reviewin g th e Complainant' s complaint , th e Assistan t Administrato r

finds n o direc t

o r indirec t allegations o f retaliation.* ' Furthermore , th e totality o f th e ne w factual claim s an dlega l analysi s proffere db y Complainan t

at thi s stag e illustrate s no t

onl y tha t th e initia l complain t

wa s completel y deficien t in regar d t o an y mention o f

th e issu e o f

retaliation , bu t

als o confirm s th e Assistan t Administrator' s opinio n that , contrar y t o Complainant' s assertion , th e Director ha dn o reaso n t o infer

o r inquir e whethe r

th e Complainan t

wa s th e victi mo f

retaliation
. Moreover , base do n th e recor dbefor e th e Director , i t appear s th e Responden t

administere dth e ACDB E progra man dengage di n extraordinar y effort s t o maintai n it s relationshi p an dretai n J & B a t th e airport. TM Accordingly , th e Assistan t Administrato r

finds th e Directo r
"Id
. A t 10
. '^ ^ 1 4 CF R§ 16.29
. '^ ^ FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite ml,at 1-3
. TM FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite m7 an dIte m1 0 a t 6
.
2 1di dno t

er r i n failin g t o findtha t

Responden t

retaliate dagains t

Complainan t

i n violatio n o f

4 9 C.F.R
. §§23.1 1 an d26.10 9 an dRespondent' s Modo n t o Strik e Ne w Issue s Raise dO n Appea l i s hereb y grante d a s t o thi s issue
. Hudso n Join t

Ventur e Clai mRevie w Th e Assistan t

Administrato r

note s tha t

o n appea l th e Complainan t ha s introduce dane w basi s for challengin g th e participatio n o f th e join t ventur e partnershi p betwee n Hudso n an dOlympi c Supply
. Th e Complainan t

allege s tha t

th e Director

shoul dno t

hav e counte dth e Hudso n join t ventur e partnership' s participatio n becaus e th e ACDB E partner , Olympi c Supply , i s no t responsibl e for

a"distinct , clearl y define dportio n o f

th e work " o f

th e contrac t

a s require db y th e regulatio n an dth e FAA' s join t ventur e guidance
. Complainan t

point s t o aMarylan dAviatio n Administratio n audi t o f th e Hudson/Olympi c Suppl y Join t

Ventur e operatin g at

Baltimore-Washingto n Intemationa l Airport (BWI)
. Complainan t aver s tha t th e BWI audi t

tea m"disqualified " Olympi c News/Suppl y fro mreceivin g ACDB E credi t becaus e i t

faile dt o operat e independend y fro mHudson.^ ' Th e Assistan t

Administrato r

finds tha t

th e Directo r

correctl y assesse dth e participatio n o f th e Hudson/ Olympi c Suppl y join t

ventur e base dupo n th e issue s an devidenc e presente di n th e recor dat th e investigativ e stage . A s th e Assistan t Administrato r

note dearlier , unde r

Part 1 6 th e Directo r

ma y includ e arevie w o f

th e pleading s o f

th e parties , a s supplemente db y an y informal investigatio n th e FA A consider s necessary , an db y additiona l informatio n furnishe db y th e partie s at FA A request . Th e FA A ma y rel y entirel y o n th e complain t an dresponsiv e pleadings
. Eac h part y i s require dt o file document s tha t i t consider s sufficien t

t o presen t

al l relevan t

fact s an dargumen t

necessar y for

th e FA A t o determin e whethe r th e sponso r

i s i n compliance
. [1 4 CF R§ 16.29 ] Th e inten t o f 1 4 CF R§ 16.2 9 i s tha t

th e FA A wil l b e abl e t o decid e th e merit s o f acas e b y lookin g solel y at th e record
. Consequently , th e Assistan t Administrato r

finds tha t

th e ne w issue s raise db y Complainan t upo n appea l challengin g th e participatio n o f th e join t ventur e partnershi p ar e no t properly raise da

t thi s stag e o f

th e proceedin g an dRespondent' s Motio n t o Strik e Ne w Issue s Raise dO n Appea l i s hereb y grante da s t o thi s issue
.

VI
. ANALYSI S AN D DISCUSSIO N
Upo n consideratio n o f

J & B Enterprise' s complain t filedwith th e FA A o n Jul y 30 , 2008 , th e Directo r o f th e Offic e o f

Airpor t Complianc e an dFiel dOperation s determine dMNA A di dno t discriminat e agains t th e Complainan t

o n th e basi s o f

hi s rac e (African American) , no r di dth e airport , in th e administratio n o f it s ne w shoeshin e concessio n leasin g polic y an dprocedure , implemen t th e progra mi n suc h amanne r a s to hav e adisparat e impac t

upo n Complainan t

o r othe r African Americans
. Th e Directo r als o determine d tha t th e Responden t

ha dawarde dth e tw o identifie dspecialty retai l concession s contract s t o Hudso n Grou p i n accordanc e with Respondent' s 15.7 % ACDB E contrac t goal an d4 9 C.F.R
. Par t

23
.

^ ' FA A Exhibit 1 , Item2 1 a

t 20-2 1

2 2Disparat e Impac t Clai mRevie w Th e Complainan t

explaine dth e essenc e o f it s clai mo f

disparat e impac t

discriminado n a s follows , "MNA A violate d4 9 CF R§ 26. 7 becaus e MNA A administere dth e ACDB E program , i n suc h away that both directl y an dthroug h contractua l an dothe r arrangement s . . . use dcriteri ao r method s o f administratio n tha t

hav e ha dth e effec t

o f defeatin g o r

substantiall y impairin g accomplishmen t o f th e objective s o f

th e ACDB E progra mwith respec t t o J& B o n th e basi s o f

race. " '' ^ Th e Complainan t

fiirther detaile dth e factixa

l basi s for

it s clai mo f

discriminatio n agains t

Responden t

stating , "[ajfter

th e contrac t wa s awarde dt o Hudson , i n violatio n o f th e concessio n agreement , i t sough t t o alte r th e layou t

an dstor e location , withou t

eithe r writte n notic e to , o r

discussio n with J&B."^ ^ Th e Complainan t furthe r allege d tha t "MNA A avoide dth e lega l proces s an dordere dth e closur e o f th e J& B stor e locate da t

Concours e B- 1 i n Jul y o f 2007
. A s aconsequenc e o f thi s breac h o f

th e Concessio n Agreement , J& B wa s place din th e CN N stor e an dno t

in th e Hudso n New s store."^" * Th e Complainan t

als o cite dth e negativ e effec t Respondent' s action s ha do n it s busines s operation s stating , "[tjhes e illega l act s place dJ& B a t adistinc t busines s disadvantage ; i t wa s withou t

appropriat e storag e spac e for

customers ' bags , coats , hats , an dothe r belongings , an dth e booth spac e mad e i t difficul t for customers ' shoe s t o b e shined
. Moreover , elderl y an do r handicappe dcustomer s ha dtremendou s difficulty bein g seated
. Th e su mo f th e aforesai dallege dact s o f discriminatio n violat e 4 9 CF RPart 2 6 § 26.7(b ) an d4 9 CF RPar t

2 3 § 23.1(e)."^ ^ Th e Responden t

countered , statin g that

Complainant' s allegations "d o no t identif y apolic y o r

practic e a t issue , no r

d o the y identif

y adisparat e advers e impac t suffere db y African-America n DB E concessionaire s at

th e Airport. " ^

* It contende dtha t

Complainan t

di dno t suppl y evidenc e t o demonstrat e advers e impac t o r an y impac t

o f Respondent' s action s o n an y entity othe r tha n J&B' s individua l business
. Th e Respondent' s ACDBEL O asserte dtha t "[t]w o othe r

ACDBEs , on e owne db y African-America n owners , participate di n th e Hudso n News , Gif t an dSpecialt y Retai l concession s proposal
. Neithe r

o f the mha s expresse dan y disconten t with Hudson , MNAA , o r th e ACDB E program."'' ^ O n appea l th e Complainan t assert s severa l error s i n th e Director' s applicatio n o f th e disparat e impac t analysi s t o th e fact s at

hand
. Complainan t

argue s th e Director

erre din concludin g ther e wa s n o disparat e impac t violatio n becaus e "J&B , a n African America n owne dbusiness , wa s th e onl y existin g concessio n tha t MNA A subjecte dt o th e challenge dpolicy , D D a t 23 , an dwa s th e onl y shoeshin e operato r at MNAA."'' * Thus , Complainan t assert s that

th e challenge dpolic y ha dadisparat e impac t o n Africa

n American s bot h b y virtu e o f th e fac t tha t i t applie donl y t o Africa

n America n owne dbusinesse s an dtha t i t wa s no t applie dt o non-minorit y owne dbusinesses
.

^ ^ FAA , Exhibi

t 1 , Ite m1 a t 3 •' ^ Id
. a t 2- 3 

### 'Ud
. ''Id
. ^ * FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 0 a t 27
. " FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite m8 a t 4
. ^ * FA A Exhibi t Lite m2 1 a

t 11
.

2 3In reviewin g th e Director' s analysis , th e Assistan t Administrato r

finds th e Directo r

reviewe dth e complaint , response s an drecor devidence , applie dth e appropriat e legal standards , an dapplie dth e fact s t o th e lega l analysi s t o determin e whethe r Complainan t

ha destablishe daprim afaci e cas e o f discriminatio n base dupo n disparat e impact
. Th e Directo r oudine dth e Complainant' s burde n o f proo f stating : I n orde r t o mak e aprim afaci e showin g tha t agive n actio n b y th e Responden t violate d4 9 CF R§ 26.7(b) , th e Complainan t mus t sho w tha t

th e Respondent' s action s ha dadisproportionat e an da n advers e impac t

o n thi s group . T o d o this , th e Complainan t

mus t sho w acausa l connectio n betwee n th e faciall y neutra l polic y an d th e disproportionat e an dadvers e impac t o n African America n sho e shin e operator s a s agroup . I n orde r t o establis h causation , th e Complainan t i s require dt o emplo y fact s an d statistic s tha t

wil l adequatel y captur e th e impac t o f th e practic e o n similarl y situate d Africa n Americans , an dmember s o f non-protecte dgroups . Th e Complainan t mus t show , usin g a

n appropriat e measure , tha t specifi c action s o f

th e Responden t

cause d adisparat e effec t

o n similarl y situate dconcessionaire s t o th e detrimen t o f African America n sho e shin e operators . Ne w Yor k Cit y Environmenta l Justic e Allianc e (NYCEJA) V

. Giuliani , 21 4 F.3 d65 , 7 0 (2 dCir
. 2000).^ ' Th e Director

foun dth e Complainan t

faile dt o establis h aprim afaci e cas e o f discriminatio n base do n disparat e impac t

becaus e i t

faile dt o includ e an y fact s o r statistic s t o sho w th e effec t Respondent' s acdon s ha do n othe r

African American s an dmember s o f th e non-protecte dgroups . Th e Assistan t Administrato r i s likewis e no t

persuade db y Complainant s assertio n o n appea l o f discriminator y impac t

where , onc e again
. Complainan t

ha s faile dt o sho w any factual o r statistica l evidenc e o f

recor dt o confirmsuc h a claim
. Additionally , th e recor ddoe s appear t o contai n evidenc e (althoug h no t abasi s for

th e Director' s opinion ) tha t

unde r Respondent' s revise dconcession s program , a n Africa n American-owne dspecialty retai l concessio n an danon-protecte dgrou p busines s (neithe r o f the mashoeshin e operation ) wer e allowe dto continu e thei r

direc t leas e arrangement s unde r th e ne w concession s program.* " Consequently , no t

al l Africa

n America n owne dbusinesse s wer e require dt o relinquis h thei r direc t leas e arrangement s a s wa s asserte db y Complainant
. Th e Complainan t

als o assign s a s erro r

th e Director' s conclusio n tha t MNA A me t

it s burde n o f

providin g asubstantia l justificatio n for it s policie s becaus e ther e wa s a"comparabl y effectiv e practic e tha t woul d hav e mad e th e Airport' s objective s efficientl y an dwoul dhav e les s discriminator y effect , notabl y adirec t leas e wit h th e Airport."* ' Th e Complainan t further argue s tha t

th e Director' s erro r

i s mad e eve n mor e apparent becaus e th e Director

shoul dhav e take n not e o f th e fac t tha t th e Airport

itsel f conclude dtha t requirin g th e shoeshin e concessio n t o operat e unde r Hudso n di dno t

wor k an dissue dan RF P wit

h adirec t leas e shoeshin e arrangement .

' ' FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 8 a t 22
. ^ ^ Se e FA A Inde x Ite m12 , DB E Offic

e Onlin e Reporting Syste

m(DOORS ) repor

t showing Nashvill e Nail s as a n African-America

n owne dACDB E an

dTh e Massag e Bar , anon-protectedclas s busines s as direc t airpor t lessees
. * ' FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m2 1 a t 12
.

2 4Th e Assistan t Administrato r

finds that

th e Responden t

articulate dsevera l permissibl e non-discriminator y reason s for

requirin g th e shoeshin e concessio n t o b e manage db y th e maste r retai l concessionaire , Hudson
. Th e Director

performe da

n extensiv e analysi s o f

thos e reason s whic h included , th e developmen t o f ane w Concession s Maste r Plan , implementatio n o f

ane w merchandisin g concept , "new s an d convenience, " increase dcustome r service , an dgreate r

revenues . Th e Directo r

explaine dhi s reason s fo

r acceptin g Respondent' s articulate djustification s a s vali dstating : Th e Director

finds tha t

Respondent' s reaso n for

changin g th e arrangemen t for th e sho e shin e concessio n appear s t o b e i n th e interes t o f increasin g custome r

service
. Further , a n airpor t ha s discretio n in fashionin g it s concession s program . Th e FA A unde r it s Airport

Complianc e Progra mdoe s no t see k t o contro l o r

direc t th e operation s o f

airports
. Th e Directo r

finds tha t

Responden t

exercise dthi s discretio n i n developin g aconcession s progra mtha t me t it s lon g ter mbusines s objectives
. Ther e i s nothin g in th e ACDB E o r DB E regulation s that

woul drequir e a

n airport sponso r t o selec t on e merchandising concept , o r concessio n managemen t metho d ove r another , unles s a

n airport sponsor' s actio n wa s motivated , o r resulte di n discriminatio n prohibite dunde r 4 9 CF R§ 26.7.* ^
Th e Assistan t

Administrato r

finds nondiscriminator y reason s in th e recor dfor Responden t

to decid e t o alte r it s long-ter mdirec t

contractin g relationshi p with Complainant
. Th e sol e fac t tha t Respondent' s decisions ma y no t

ultimatel y bear

th e anticipate dfmi t

i s no t a n acceptabl e basi s t o conclud e tha t the y hav e adiscriminator y impact ; suc h i s th e natur e o f business
. A s th e Director noted , th e FA A ha s n o interes t i n directin g th e merchandisin g program s o f Airport s o r

curtailin g thei r

discretio n i n fashionin g suc h programs , a s lon g a s the y ar e lawfull y created.* ^ Therefore , th e Assistan t Administrato r

finds n o erro r in th e Director' s analysi s o r finding s a s the y relat e t o th e clai mo f disparat e impac t

discrimination
. Disparat e Treatmen t

Clai mRevie w Th e Complainan t

allege di n th e proceeding s belo w tha t Responden t

an dHudso n discriminate dagains t i t o n th e basi s o f

rac e (African American ) throug h collaborative act s o f frau dan dintimidation
. Specifically , Complainan t asserte dtha t

i t wa s no t afforde dth e sam e right s a s othe r concessio n operator s at th e airport

including : (1 ) no t

bein g permitte dt o desig n it s interior s an dobtai n approva l fro mth e Airport , a s wa s th e cas e for al l othe r operators ; (2 ) no t

bein g give n ahearin g t o discus s objection s o r question s regardin g th e relocatio n o f it s shoeshin e operation ; (3 ) bein g denie dth e opportunit y t o provid e adequat e seatin g for

it s customers , o r

thei r belonging s resultin g i n th e drasti c reductio n o f it s gros s receipts ; (4 ) bein g denie dcompariso n informatio n for othe r concessio n operator s withi n th e Airport ; an d (5 ) no t receivin g adequat e attentio n t o informatio n request s pose dt o th e Responden t o r Hudson.*" * Complainan t

als o state dtha t

i t wa s ordere dt o pay for

abooth whic h di dno t

mee t it s operationa l requirement s an dtha t

i t wa s threatene dwith remova l fro mth e airport fo r refusal t o sig n th e subleas e

^ ^ FA A Exhibi t 1 , Ite m1 8 a t 23
. ^Md
. ^ ^ FA A Exhibi t Lite m1

2 5agreemen t drafte db y Hudson
. Complainan t state dthat

al l o f th e abov e act s wer e th e resul t o f a n organize dcampaig n o f

intentiona l racia l discriminatio n an dharassment.* ^ Th e Assistan t

Administrato r

finds tha t

th e Directo r

undertoo k

athoroug h revie w o f

th e Complainant' s clai mo f disparat e treatmen t

discriminatio n unde r

4 9 C.F.R
. sectio n 26.7(a)
. Th e Directo r outline dth e step s necessar y for

aprope r analysi s o f

intentiona l discriminatio n an dreference dth e case s tha t outlin e th e steps . Th e Director

note dwhat

th e Complainant s neede dt o sho w i n orde r t o prov e intentiona l discrimination , an dapplie dth e McDonnel l Dougla s framewor k t o determin e whethe r

th e Complainant s prove dthei r

discriminatio n clai ma s follows : T o analyz e whethe r

racia l discriminatio n occurre dunde r 4 9 CF R§ 26.7(a) , th e FA A wil l us e th e intentiona l discriminatio n o r disparat e treatmen t

theor y o f discriminatio n unde r

Titl e V I o f

th e Civi l Right s Act , a s amended
. Th e Directo r wil l revie w thes e matter s t o determin e whethe r Responden t intentionall y discriminate dagains t Complainan t

o n th e basi s o f

it s race , whe n afte r th e contrac t

wa s awarde dt o Hudson , i n violatio n o f th e Complainant' s concessio n agreement . Responden t allegedl y too k

th e followin g actions : (1 ) altere dth e layou t

an dstor e location , withou t eithe r writte n notic e to , o r discussio n wit h Complainant ; (2 ) ordere dth e closur e o f th e J& B stor e locate d a t Concours e B- 1 i n Jul y 2007 ; (3 ) place dJ& B i n th e CN N stor e an dno t i n th e Hudso n New s store ; an d(4 ) threatene dt o remov e Complainan t fro mth e premise s whe n i t

refuse dt o sig n asubleas e wit h Hudson
. Th e analysi s o f

intentiona l discriminatio n i s equivalen t t o th e analysi s o f disparat e treatmen t

unde r th e Equa l Protectio n Claus e o f th e Fourteent h Amendment
. (Se e U.S
. Departmen t o f Justic e Titl e V

I Lega l Manual , a t

4 2 (Januar y 11 , 2001 )
. . . Intentiona l discriminatio n claim s ma y b e analyze d usin g th e Titl e VI I burde n shiftin g analyti c framewor k establishe db y th e Suprem e Cour t

i n McDonnel l Dougla s Corp
. v . Green , 41 1 U.S
. 79 2 a t 80 2 (1973)
. I n applyin g th e framewor k establishe di n McDonnel l Douglas , th e complainan t

mus t firs t rais e a n inferenc e o f

discriminatio n b y establishin g a prim afaci e cas e o f

discrimination
. Th e element s o f aprim afaci e cas e ofte n include , (1 ) th e aggrieve dperso n wa s amembe r o f aprotecte dclass , (2 ) th e perso n applie dfor , an dwa s eligibl e fo r afederally-assiste dprogra mtha t wa s acceptin g applications , (3 ) despit e th e person' s eligibilit y h e o r sh e wa s rejected , an d(4 ) recipien t selecte dapplicant s o f

th e person' s qualifications , o r th e recipien t

continue dt o accep t

application s fro mapplicant s o f person' s qualifications.* *

' ' Id
. a t 2- 3 ^ * FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite m1 8 a t 27-28
.

2 6Th e Directo r foun dtha t

th e Complainan t

di dno t establis h aprim afaci e cas e o f discrimination , a s i t provide dn o informatio n t o sho w tha t Responden t

no r Hudso n treate dothe r

subcontractor s no t

o f Complainant' s rac e differently.* ^ Whil e th e Directo r note dtha t

ther e wa s n o specifi c writte n notificatio n give n t o Complainan t

regardin g th e relocatio n o f th e B- 7 concessio n location. , ther e was , however , substantia l genera l informatio n notic e give n t o Complainan t an dothe r

concessionaire s regardin g th e relocatio n o f

concessions , includin g th e shoeshin e concessions , unde r th e ne w concessio n plan
. Complainant , i n fact , attende dth e mandator y pre-proposa l meetin g i n Febmar y o f 200 6 regardin g th e ne w concession s RFP.* * Th e Directo r

als o examine dth e Respondent' s articulate dnondiscriminator y reason s for it s allege d actions.* ' Th e Assistan t

Administrato r

finds tha t

ther e i s substantia l evidenc e i n th e recor dt o support th e Director' s finding tha t

Complainan t

wa s no t th e victi mo f

disparat e treatmen t

racia l discriminatio n in violatio n o f

4 9 C.F. Rsectio n 26.7(a)
. Th e Director' s Determinatio n focuse do n th e consequence s o f th e recipient' s practices , rathe r than th e recipient' s inten t an dperforme dth e appropriat e analysi s pursuan t t o relevan t case s decide dunde r

Titl e VI I disparat e impac t law.' " Th e Complainan t di dno t demonstrat e b y a preponderanc e o f

evidenc e that

th e Respondent' s practic e ha s adisproportionat e advers e effec t o n th e protecte dgrou p [African Americans]. " I n fact , th e Directo r foun d"Th e Complainan t ha s provide donl y evidenc e o f

ho w i t wa s adversel y impacte db y Respondent' s decisions ; i t ha s provide dn o fact s o r statistica l dat at o sho w whethe r ther e i s adisproportiona l an dadvers e impac t o n African America n sho e shin e operators.. . no r

...th e impact..
. o n sho e shin e operator s no t o f Complainant' s race...."' ^ Th e Assistan t Administrato r

specificall y note s th e airport' s longstandin g contractua l relationshi p wit h Complainant ; th e Respondent' s willingnes s t o remov e Complainan t fro mit s subcontracto r

relationshi p wit h Hudso n whe n i t

prove dunworkable ; an dRespondent' s decisio n t o pa y hal f o f th e cos t t o constmc t

a ne w shoeshin e boot h ordere dt o Complainant' s specifications
. Finally , th e Director als o researche d Respondent' s pas t

histor y regardin g discriminatio n complaint s an dRespondent' s recor do f ACDB E goa l achievemen t

durin g pas t

thre e federal fiscal years . Responden t achieve d16. 5 percent , 9. 6 percent , an d 18. 9 percen t

participatio n i n non-car

renta l ACDB E participation
. Th e history support s Respondent' s ACDB E effort s t o protec t th e grou p an dmee t

it s goal.' ^ Th e recor dherei n lack s evidenc e t o support Complainant' s clai mo f

disparat e treatmen t

an dimpact
. Therefore , th e Assistan t Administrato r

finds tha t th e Directo r

di dno t er r in hi s determinatio n t o dismis s Complainant' s clai mo f discriminatio n o n th e basi s o f race .

^ ^ Id
. a t 2 7 ^ * Id
. a t 29 ^ ' Id
. a t 27-2 8 ' ° Id
. a t 21-2 4 " Id
. a t 22 '^Id
. '^It shoul db e notedthat , while Responden t ha s agoodrecor

do f achievemen

t o f overall goals , 4 9 CF

RPar t 23.5 7 recognize s tha

t recipient s wh

o expen dgoodfait

h effort s i n operating thei

r progra mcannot b e penalizedas bein

g non - complian

t solel y becaus e thei

r ACDB E participatio n fal

l shor t o f thei r overall goal
.

2 7Awar do f News , Gift s & Retai l Concession s Par t 2 3 Complianc e Clai mRevie w Th e Complainan t

initiall y asserte di n th e proceeding s belo w tha t th e Responden t

erre di n awardin g th e Hudso n Grou p th e tw o prim e concession s contract s becaus e i t faile dt o achiev e th e require d15. 7 percen t ACDB E participatio n goa l se t i n th e solicitation.'" * Th e Director foun dtha t

Complainan t

base dthi s assertio n o n tw o misconception s i t ha dregardin g th e prope r interpretatio n o f

th e regulation
. First , th e Directo r foun dtha t

Complainan t

base dit s accountin g o f

Hudson' s ACDB E participatio n o n th e incorrec t assumptio n tha t

th e regulatio n require dtha t th e ACDB E contro l 5 1 percen t o f th e join t ventur e i n orde r for i t t o b e ACDB E certified.' ^ Complainan t reasone dtha t

sinc e AMS-Olympi c Nashville , Hudson' s ACDB E join t

ventur e partner , onl y owne d1 7 percen t o f th e entity , it s participatio n woul dno t coun t towar dth e Respondent' s 15. 7 percen t ACDB E participatio n requirement , resultin g i n th e Hudso n Grou p Join t Ventur e achievin g n o mor e than 2 percen t ACDB E participation
. Th e regulation s i n fac t requir e 5 1 percen t ownershi p an dcontro l o f th e ACDB E firmb y sociall y an deconomicall y disadvantage d individuals , no t

5 1 percen t

contro l o f

ajoin t ventur e b y th e ACDB E join t ventur e partner . Secondly , th e Directo r

detennine dtha t

Complainan t

wa s incorrec t

in it s clai mtha t

Olympi c Suppl y an d Hudson' s othe r

ACDBE s wer e no t

certifie di n th e Stat e o f

Tennessee
. Th e recor dindicate s that th e Responden t

provide ddocumentatio n o f Olympi c Supply' s certificatio n withi n th e stat e indicatin g that i t wa s owne db y tw o African America n individuals
. Accordingly , th e Assistan t Administrato r

als o finds tha t

th e Director

di dno t er r in validatin g th e awar do f th e tw o prim e concession s contract s t o Hudson , an di n validatin g th e achievemen t o f th e 15. 7 percen t ACDB E participatio n b y th e Hudson/Olympi c Suppl y join t venture . Also , o n appea l th e Complainan t allege s tha t

th e Directo r

shoul dno t

hav e counte dth e Hudso n join t ventur e partnership' s participatio n becaus e th e ACDB E partner , Olympi c Supply , i s no t responsibl e for

a "distinct , clearl y define dportio n o f th e work " o f

th e contrac t

a s require db y th e regulatio n an dth e FAA' s join t ventur e guidance
. A s state dearlie r i n thi s determination , th e Assistan t Administrato r

wil l no t undertak e arevie w an danalysi s o f that allegatio n a s i t

wa s dismisse dfromconsideratio n o n appeal base d upo n th e gran t

o f Respondent' s Motio n t o Strik e Ne w Issue s Raise do n Appeal , se e th e discussio n o f thi s issu e o n pag e 22
. 4 9 C.F. RPar t

2 3 an d2 6 & Gran t

Assurance s Nos
. 3 0 & 3 7 Clai mRevie w Th e Complainan t

i n th e proceedin g belo w allege dtha t Responden t

faile dt o implemen t

it s ACDB E programi n goo dfaith , citin g it s failure t o mee t th e ACDB E programobjective s unde r 4 9 CF R§ 23.1.' ^ Th e Complainan t

contende dtha t

Responden t

di dno t provid e for

aleve l playin g field, an dthwarte d Complainant' s full participatio n in th e ACDB E progra mwhe n Responden t wa s unabl e t o relocat e Complainan t

outsid e o f

B- 5 a s planned
. Th e Complainan t believe s th e Responden t di dno t follo w throug h

' " FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite m1 a t 2- 3 '^ FA A Exhibi t 18
. a t 19-20
. " ^ Id
. a t 18
. " FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite m1 a t 2-3
.

2 8o n it s decisio n t o remov e Complainan t fro mth e Hudso n maste r concessio n contrac t

an dmov e i t

int o a direc t leas e arrangemen t

with th e Airport.' * O n appeal th e Complainan t argue s that

th e Director

erre din hi s analysi s an dconclusio n tha t th e Respondent' s actions , o r

inaction , individuall y o r

cumulatively , wer e no t

contrar y t o 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 dth e Federa l Gran t Assurance s Nos
. 3 0 an d37
. Th e Complainan t challenge s o n appea l th e Director' s rational e tha t th e Responden t "attempte dt o d o everythin g i t believe di t

coul dt o facilitat e Complainant' s full participatio n in th e ACDB E program." " Th e Complainan t argue s tha t

suc h afindin g i s clearl y contradicte db y Respondent' s decisio n t o terminat e it s longstandin g direc t concession s relationshi p with Complainan t an d pu t th e shoeshin e concessio n u p for publi c bid
. Th e Complainan t als o disagree s with th e Director' s assessmen t

tha t Responden t

mad e "extraordinar y efforts " t o resolv e al l o f Complainant' s issue s with Hudso n an daccommodat e it s needs
. Th e Complainan t opine s tha t

Respondent' s "extraordinar y attempts " wer e nothin g bu t

"empt y promise s an dagreement s neve r executed."'" " Th e Assistan t Administrato r

finds tha t th e Directo r

performe dafran

k an dbalance drevie w o f

Respondent' s administratio n o f it s Part 2 3 ACDB E Progra mconsisten t wit h th e objective s se t

fort h in 4 9 C.F.R
. sectio n 23.1
. Fo r example , th e Director recognize dthat

Respondent' s failur e t o " se t servic e o r

operationa l standards , o r aminimu m squar e footag e allotment
. . . create dth e condition s for issue s suc h a s thos e experience db y th e Complainan t

o n th e unsuitability o f

th e spac e an ddesig n o f

th e shoeshin e stand."'" ' Th e Directo r als o foun dthat " Responden t

di dno t appear t o conside r

th e impac t

o f it s polic y o n ACDBE s an dothe r smal l businesses , whe n i t

decide dt o charg e a1 3 percen t ren t for both th e new s an dconvenienc e stor e operator , an dth e shoeshin e operator , whic h wer e t o b e co-locate di n tw o o f th e new s an dconvenienc e stores . A s note dabove , th e new s an dconvenienc e an dth e shoeshin e concession s ar e no t comparable
. Th e tw o concession s var y widel y i n thei r industry typ e an dtraditiona l profi t margins. " (Id
. at

31 ) Th e Directo r

als o note dRespondent' s willingnes s t o correc t th e inequitie s i t

create dtha t

ha dbecom e a barrie r t o Complainant
. Thi s include dth e decisio n b y Responden t an dHudso n t o reduc e Complainant s ren t from1 3 percen t

to 4 percen t

o f gros s sale s t o mak e i t

consisten t

with th e amoun t

Complainan t previousl y pai dunde r

it s previou s direc t

leasin g contract.'" ^ Th e Directo r likewis e correctl y note d Respondent' s extraordinar y actio n i n removin g Complainan t fro mHudson' s maste r

leas e whe n th e issue s betwee n Hudso n an dComplainan t coul dno t

b e resolved.'" ^ Th e Assistan t

Administrato r

concludes , base dupo n revie w o f th e statement s o f

th e partie s an dth e totality o f th e record , tha t

th e airport

too k mor e tha n reasonabl e step s t o accommodat e th e Complainant' s issue s

' * FA A Exhibit 1 , Ite m2 1 a t 22
. "'Id
. at21
. '° ° Id
. a t 22
. '"'FA A Exhibit

1 , Ite m1 8 a t 31
. '"^ Id
. '°^Id
.
2 9an dth e Directo r di dno t er r i n finding th e Responden t wa s complian t

wit h th e administrative , genera l an d complianc e requirement s o f 4 9 CFRPart s 2 3 an d2 6 an dGran t Assurance s No
. 3 0 an dNo
. 37
. *"" * VII
. FINDING S AN D CONCLUSIO N Base do n th e foregoin g discussio n an danalysis,.th e Assistan t Administrato r

conclude s tha t

th e Director' s Determinatio n i s supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidence , an di s consisten t wit h applicabl e law , precedent , an dFA A polic y a s describe dabove
. Thi s appea l doe s no t provid e asufficien t

basi s for reversin g th e Director' s Determination s findin g tha t th e Responden t Metropolita n Nashvill e Airport Authority : (1 ) complie dwith 4 9 CF RPar t 2 3 i n goo dfait

h b y awardin g th e Hudso n Grou p th e tw o News , Gifts , an dSpecialty Retai l concessio n contract s (NGSP- 1 an dNGSP

2 ) a t Nashvill e Intemationa l Airport ; (2 ) correcd y determine dthat th e Hudso n Grou p exceede d Respondent' s ACDB E contrac t goa l of 15. 7 percent : (3 ) di dno t disparatel y impac t

Complainan t

o r othe r African American s i n th e administratio n o f it s ne w shoeshin e concessio n leasin g polic y an dprocedur e consisten t wit h it s duty t o compl y wit

h 4 9 CF R§ 23. 9 an d4 9 CF R§ 26.7(b) : (4 ) di dno t discriminat e agains t th e Complainan t

o n th e basi s o f

it s rac e (African American ) i n complianc e wit h 4 9 CF R§ 23. 9 an d4 9 CF R§ 26.7(a) , and ; (5 ) complie dwith th e administrative , genera l an dcomplianc e requirement s o f 4 9 CF RPart s 2 3 an d2 6 an dGran t Assurance s No
. 3 0 an dNo
. 37
.

ORDE R Th e FA A dismisse s thi s Appea l an daffirm s th e Director' s Determinatio n pursuan t t o 1 4 CF R §16.33
. Thi s Decisio n constitute s th e final decisio n o f th e Assistan t

Administrato r

fo r Civi l Right s an dDiversit y Advocate , pursuan t t o 1 4 CF R§ 16.3 3 (a) , unde r th e authority o f

4 9 US C §§4712 2 an d46101
. APPEA L RIGHT S A part y t o thi s decisio n disclosin g asubstantia l interes t in th e final decisio n an dorde r o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ma y fil e apetitio n for

revie w pursuan t

t o 4 9 U.S.C
. § 46110 , in th e Unite dState s Court o f Appeal s for

th e Distric t

o f Columbi aCircui t

o r i n th e court

of appeal s of

th e Unite dState s for

th e Circui t i n whic h th e perso n reside s o r ha s it s principa l plac e o f business
. Th e petitio n mus t b e file dno t

late r than 6 0 day s after

thi s Fina l Decisio n an dOrde r ha s bee n serve do n th e parties
. 16.247(a). ] 10 5 [1 4 CFR , Part 16 , §

Dat e 

# 6^^ /



# 3 ^o/ o Fann y River a Assistan t Administrato r

fo r Civi l Right s an dDiversit y Advocat e
'"• * Th e Assistan t Administrato

r note s tha t 4 9 CF RPar t 2 3 specificall

y addresse s the requirement s relating t o th e operation o

f a n airpor t concession s progra

man dincorporate s b

y referenc e man

y o f th e genera l compliance , administrativ e an

dpolicy provision s o

f 4 9 CF RPar t 26
. See , e^. , 4 9 CF

RPar t 2 3 section s 23.9(a) , 23.11 , 23.23 , 23.23(e)(l)(iv ) an

d23.55
. '" ^ Th e FA A require s th

e movin g part y t o include asupporting brie

f wit h it s Petition fo

r Appeal
.

3 0

## FA A Exhibi t 1 J& B Enterprise s Inc. , d/b/ aRhyth mShin e v . Metropolita n Nashvill e Airpor t Authorit y Director' s Determinatio n - Docke t No
. 16-08-0 7 INDE X O F ADMINISTRATIV E RECOR D Ite m1 Jul y 30 , 2008 , complain t filedb y J& B Enterprise s Inc. , d/b/ aRhyth mShin e (Complainant) , agains t

th e Metropolita n Nashvill e Airpor t Authorit y (MNAA ) (Respondent) , allegin g numerou s violation s o f 4 9 CF RPart s 2 3 an d2 6 i n referenc e t o aReques t

for Proposa l (RFP ) for

th e managemen t

o f th e New s Gift s an dSpecialty Retai l concession s a t MNAA
. Jul y 30 , 2008 , lette r accompanyin g complaint , fro mAnthon y W
. Robinson , Esquire , Minorit y Busines s Enterpris e Lega l Defens e an dEducatio n Fund , Inc
. (MBELDEF ) t o th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) Offic e o f th e Chie f Counsel , certifyin g servic e o f complain t upo n th e MNA A b y electroni c mai l t o Rober t Watson , Esq. , Senio r Vic e Presiden t

an dChie f

Lega l Officer

an dt o Rau l Regalado , Presiden t & CEO , MNAA
. Complainan t

include dth e followin g attache dexhibit s wit h it s complaint
. Th e followin g attachment s wer e no t paginate dan dwer e not

reference dnumericall y or alphabetically
. The y ar e presente dbelo w i n th e orde r foun di n th e complain t document
.

- Septembe r

20 , 2006 , Pres s Releas e issue db y Hudso n Grou p an dMNAA , "Metropolita n Nashvill e Airport

Select s Hudso n Grou p an dPartner s t o Revam p BNA' s News/Gif t an d Retai l Concessions. "

- Concessio n Agreement , Exhibit s A & B , map , date dMa y 14 , 1992 , showin g tenan t location s i n Nort h Concours e "B " an dSout h Concours e "C" , an dComplainant' s "Assigne dArea " i n Concours e "B " Alcove , an d"Assigne dArea : i n Cours e "C " Alcove
.

- Decembe r

7 , 2007 , E-mai l fro mMNAA , Joh n Howard , t o Jame s Druet t an dBetty Druett , Subject : "Rhyth mShine"
. Correspondenc e concem s relocatio n o f shoeshin e stand
.

- Decembe r

12 , 2007 , E-mai l fro mMNAA , Joh n Howard , t o Bett y Druett , Subject : "Movin g o f

sho e shin e booth fro mHudso n New s stor e t o temporar y location. "

- Novembe r

29 , 2007 , E-mai l fro mMNAA , Rebecc aRamse y t o S
. Farris , Hudso n Group , Subject : "Sho e shin e stan d@ CNN"
. Correspondenc e concem s reques t for certai n informatio n for

th e mov e o f

th e sho e shin e stan dfro mCN N t o temporar y locatio n i n front o f ol d"B " Concours e smokin g lounge
.

### - Novembe r 20 , 2007 , E-mai l fro mMNAA , Rebecc aRamse y t o Jame s an dBetty Dmett , Subject : "Ne w Shoeshin e locations"
. Correspondenc e concem s attendanc e o f Bett y an d Jame s Dmet t

a t casua l luncheo n t o mee t

Tomm y Bibb , ne w Propertie s Director
.

- Novembe r

19 , 2007 , E-mai l fro mMNAA , Rebecc aRamsey , t o Jame s an dBetty Dmett , Subject : "Ne w Shoeshin e locations. " Correspondenc e concem s reques t t o schedul e searc h for potentia l location s for

sho e shin e stands
.

- Augus t 20 , 2007 , Lette r

fro mJame s Dmett , President , an dBett y Dmett , Secretary/Treasurer , J& B Enterprises , Inc
. t o Mr
. Rau l Regalado , Presiden t an dCEO , MNAA , concernin g grievance s with th e Hudso n Group , experienc e with th e solicitatio n proces s for

th e maste r

retai l concessio n contract , an dreques t fo r information
.

- Septembe r

21 , 2007 , Lette r

fro mJame s Dmett , President , an dBett y Dmett , Secretary an dTreasurer , J& B Enterprises , Inc
. t o Mr
. Jame s H
. Cheek , III , Chairman , an dMs
. Rosly n Carpenter , Boar do f Commissioners , MNAA , concernin g numerou s grievance s with regar dt o th e retai l concessio n contract . Include s ahistor y o f Complainant' s experienc e with MNAA , an dwit h MNAA' s News , Gifts , an dSpecialt y Retai l RFP , an da Septembe r

21 , 2007 , lette r

fro mJ& B t o MNA A Commissioner s detailin g leas e concems .

- Novembe r

2 , 2007 , meetin g attende db y J&B , MNA A an dHudso n Grou p representatives , meetin g minutes
.

- Apri l 15 , 2008 , Lette r

fro mAnthon y W
. Robinson , Esquire , MBELDEF , t o Rau l Regalad a[Regalado] , Presiden t an dCEO , MNAA , advisin g th e Airpor t o f thei r statu s a s J& B Enterprises , Inc.' s lega l representative , an drequestin g ameetin g t o voluntaril y resolv e lega l complianc e issues
. -Jun e 06 , 2008 , Lette r

fro mRober t

C
. Watson , Senio r

Vic e Presiden t

an dChie f

Legal Officer , MNAA , t o Anthon y W
. Robinson , MBELDEF , informin g Mr
. Robinso n o f thei r lac k o f succes s i n obtainin g asatisfactory dat e t o meet , an dth e Airport' s inten t t o no t rene w J& B Enterprises ' contract , an dpla n t o publicl y compet e th e Sho e Shin e Concessio n at

BNA
. Ite m2 Augus t

7 , 2008 , Lette r

fro mAnthon y W
. Robinson , Esq. , MBELDEF , t o FA A Offic e o f th e Chie f Counsel , regardin g "Complain t o f J& B Enterprises , Inc
. d/b/a
. Rhyth mShin e v . Metropolita n Nashvill e Airport Authority ; Supplementa l Certificat e o f

Service. " Ite m3 August , 11 , 2008 , FA A Notice , advisin g th e partie s tha t Complain t

filedb y J& B Enterprise s Inc. , d/b/ aRhyth mShin e unde r th e mle s o f

1 4 CF RPar t

16 , ha s bee n dockete db y th e FAA' s Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l a s Docke t

No
. 16-08-07
.

### Ite m4 Augus t 18 , 2008 , Designatio n o f Person s to Receiv e Servic e for th e Metropolita n Nashvill e Airport

Authority , an dResponden t Metropolita n Nashvill e Airport Authority' s Motion for

Extensio n o f

Tim e t o Fil e Answer
. Ite m5 Septembe r 3 , 2008 , Lette r

fro mFAA , Airport s La w Branch , t o Thoma s R
. Devine , Esq. , KAPLAN , KIRSCH , & ROCKWELL , LLP , an dt o Blain e A'mmo n White , Esq
. an dAnthon y W
. Robinson , Esq. , MBELDEF , grantin g Respondent' s reques t for a n extensio n o f

tim e t o file Answer
. Respondent' s Answe r du e Novembe r

3 , 2008
. Ite m5 A Septembe r 4 , 2008 , Complainant' s Objectio n to Respondent' s Reques t fo r An Extensio n o f

Time
. Ite m6 Octobe r

31 , 2008 , Affidavi t

i n Support

o f Responden t

Metropolita n Nashvill e Airpor t Authority' s Answe r

an dMotio n t o Dismiss : Rebecc aRamsey , Manage r o f Properties , MNAA
. Ite m7 Octobe r

30 , 2008 , Affidavi t

i n Support

o f Responden t

Metropolita n Nashvill e Airpor t Authority' s Answe r

an dMotion t o Dismiss : Joh n Howar dJr. , Assistan t Vic e Presiden t

o f Propertie s an dBusines s Development , MNAA
. Ite m8 Octobe r

30 , 2008 , Affidavi t

i n Support

o f Responden t

Metropolita n Nashvill e Airpor t Authority' s Answe r

an dMotio n t o Dismiss : Ambe r Danc y Gooding , Directo r o f Busines s Diversit y Development , MNAA
. Ite m9 Novembe r 3 , 2008 , Responden t

Metropolita n Nashvill e Airpor t Authority' s Motio n t o Dismiss
. Ite m1 0 Novembe r 3 , 2008 , Responden t

Metropolita n Nashvill e Airpor t Authority' s Answe r an dMemorandu mo f

Point s an dAuthoritie s i n Support Thereo f an din Support o f it s Motio n t o Dismiss
. Exhibi t Lis t To : Responden t

Metropolita n Nashvill e Airpor t Authority' s Answe r

an d Memorandu mo f

Point s an dAuthoritie s i n Support Thereo f an di n Support

o f It s Motio n t o Dismis s Volum e 1 o f

2 (Exhibit s 1 throug h 12 ) Exhibi t 1 : Layou t

o f Concourse s (BNA—Al l Concessio n Locations)
. Exhibi t 2 : Metropolita n Nashvill e Airport Authority , Nashvill e Intemationa l Airport , Maste r Concessio n Plan , date dDecembe r 200 4 (Excerpts)
. Exhibi t 3 : F Y 2009-201 1 Airport Concessionaire s DB E Program , Goa l Methodolog y (Non-Car Renta l Concessions ) fo

r Nashvill e Airport
.

### Exhibi t 4 : FF Y 200 6 - 200 8 Airport Concessionaire s DB E Goa l Methodolog y (Non-Car Renta l concessions ) for

Nashvill e Intemationa l Airport , date dDecembe r 2005 , an d Metropolita n Nashvill e Airpor t Authority , Airport

Concession s Disadvantage dBusines s Progra mfor

Nashvill e Intemationa l Airport , Decembe r 2005 , revise dAugus t

2006
. Exhibi t 5 : Lette r t o Rau l Regalad o fro mM
. Howell , Regiona l Civi l Right s Officer fo r FAA , date dSeptembe r

29 , 2006 , regardin g overal l DB E goa l methodolog y fo r 15. 7 percen t for non-car renta l concession s for

federal fiscal year s 2006-2008
. Exhibi t 6 : MNAA' s UniformReport s o f ACDB E Participation , 200 7 an d2008
. Th e MNAA' s UniformRepor t o f ACDB E Participatio n for F Y 200 7 repor t

was not submitte d althoug h i t

wa s state dt o b e included
. Exhibi t 7 : Secon dAmendmen t

t o Concessio n Agreemen t betwee n J& B Enterprises , Inc
. an dMetropolita n Nashvill e Airport Authority , date dDecembe r 17 , 200 3 Exhibi t 8 : Concessio n Agreemen t betwee n J& B Enterprises , Inc
. an dMetropolita n Nashvill e Airport

Authorit y for

Shoeshin e Concession , date dJul y 6 , 1992 , an dFirs t Amendmen t

t o Concessio n Agreement , date dJul y 25 , 1997
. Th e Firs t Amendmen t

t o Concessio n Agreemen t

was no t submitted , althoug h i t

was state dt o b e included
. Exhibi t 9 : Lette r t o J
. Dmet t

fromR
. Ramse y date dDecembe r 23 , 1999 , extendin g J&B' s Concessio n Agreemen t o n year-to-year

basi s unti l Authorit y implement s it s Lon g Rang e Commercia l Strategi c Plan
. Exhibi t 10 : Lette r

t o R
. Regalad o fro mJ
. Dmet t an dB
. Dmett , date dAugus t 20 , 2007 , concernin g grievance s with th e Hudso n Group
. Exhibi t 11 : Lette r

t o M
. Tato mfro mJ
. Dmet t an dB
. Dmett , date d Octobe r 3 , 2006 , thankin g he r

for he r professionalis mi n handlin g thei r concems . Exhibi t 12 : Reques t

for Proposal s for

News , Gift s an dSpecialt y Retai l Concessio n a t Nashvill e Intemationa l Airport , date dFebmar y 6 , 200 6 (Excerpts)
. Excerpt s provided : Tabl e o f Contents ; Sectio n 1 , Introduction ; Sectio n II , Solicitatio n Schedule ; Sectio n VII , News , Gift s an dSpecialty Retai l Concepts ; an dSectio n IX , Right s an dDutie s o f Proposers
. Volum e 2 o f

2 (Exhibit s 1 3 throug h 37) : Exhibi t 13 : Sign-I n Shee t

for Pre-Proposa l Meeting , date dFebmar y 24 , 2006
. (Attendanc e Lis t

for th e News , Gift , an dSpecialty Retai l RF P Pre-proposa l Meeting. ) Exhibi t 14 : Pres s Releas e regardin g Awar do f Concessions , date dSeptembe r 20 , 2006
. Exhibi t 15 : Maste r

Leas e an dConcessio n Agreemen t betwee n Airpor t

Managemen t Services , LL C (Hudso n Group ) an dMetropolita n Nashvill e Airpor t Authority , date d Novembe r

30 , 2006
.

### Exhibi t 16 : E-mai l t o H
. Bassett , Transyste mInc
. fro mR
. Ramsey , date dMa y 11 , 2007 , declinin g th e Hudso n Group' s reques t t o flip th e sho e shin e are aan dth e refrigerato r area s i n th e B-5 , CN N store . Exhibi t 17 : E-mai l t o J
. DiDomizi o an dother s fro mR
. Ramsey , date dAugus t 21 , 2007 , concemin g th e relationshi p betwee n J& B Enterprise s an dth e Hudso n Group
. Exhibi t 18 : E-mai l t o J
. Dmet t

an dB
. Dmet t

fro mJ
. Howard , date dSeptembe r 6 , 2007 , requestin g afac e t o fac e meetin g with J& B Enterprise s t o resolv e an y issu e betwee n J& B Enterprise s an dth e Hudso n Group
. Exhibi t 19 : E-mai l t o J
. Howar dfro mJ
. Wilson , th e Hudso n Group , date dSeptembe r 17 , 2007 , respondin g t o Mr
. Howard' s reques t for alis t o f item s neede dfro mJ& B Enterprises
. Exhibi t 20 : (1 ) Lette r

t o J& B fro mR
. Ramsey , date dAugus t 29 , 2007 , enclosin g informatio n tha t

J& B requeste di n thei r

lette r t o Rau l Regalad o date dAugus t 20 , 2007 ; (2 ) Lette r t o R
. Ramse y fro mJ&B , date dAugus t 31 , 2007 , informin g Ms
. Ramse y that th e informatio n that

was sen t wa s identica l t o th e informatio n tha t J& B alread y ha din it s possession ; Lette r

t o A.Goodin g fro mJ&B , date dSeptembe r 1 , 2007 , requestin g several item s o f information , includin g som e relatin g t o th e Concessio n Agreemen t for th e Hudso n Group ; (3 ) e-mai l t o Jame s an dBett y Dmet t fro mR
. Ramsey , date dSeptembe r 6 , 2007 , respondin g t o Complainant' s reques t for information , an dagreein g t o shar e a cop y o f Hudson' s proposa l that

wa s submitte di n respons e t o th e News , Gifts , an d Specialt y Retai l RFP ; an d(4 ) e-mai l t o R
. Ramse y fro mJ
. Howard , date dOctobe r 9 , 2007 , informin g Ms
. Ramse y that Mr
. Howar dme t

with th e Dmetts , an dthe y picke du p Hudson' s respons e t o th e RFP
. Exhibi t 21 : E-mai l t o R
. Ramse y fro mB
. Dmett , date dSeptembe r 5 , 2007 , regardin g Jame s an dBett y Dmett' s decisio n no t t o atten daSeptembe r

14 , 2007 , meetin g with Airpor t an dHudso n Grou p personnel
. Exhibi t 22 : E-mai l t o J
. Howar dfro mB
. Dmett , date dSeptembe r 19 , 2007 , regardin g concem s t o b e addressed
. Exhibi t 23 : Lette r

(with attachments ) t o MNA A Boar do f Commissioner s fro mJ
. Dmet t an dB
. Dmett , date dSeptembe r 21 , 2007 , regardin g grievance s with th e Hudso n Group
. Exhibi t 24 : Novembe r

2 , 2007 , meetin g attende db y J&B , MNAA , an dHudso n Grou p representatives , meetin g minutes
. Exhibi t 25 : E-mai l t o J
. Dmet t

an dB
. Dmet t

fro mR
. Ramsey , date dNovembe r 19 , 2007 , regardin g th e schedulin g o f ameetin g t o loo k

a t potential sho e shin e locations
.

### Exhibi t 26 : E-mai l t o J
. Dmet t

an dB
. Dmet t

fro mJ
. Howard , date dDecembe r 7 , 2007 , regardin g plan s relatin g t o th e relocatio n o f th e sho e shin e stan dcurrentl y insid e th e CNN Newsstand
. Exhibi t 27 : Lette r

t o Mr
. an dMrs
. J
. Dmet t fromD
. Benton , th e Hudso n Group , date d Febmar y 11 , 2008 , regardin g desir e t o execut e asubleas e wit h J& B Enterprises , an dt o offer assistanc e i n developin g it s merchandisin g line
. Exhibi t 28 : E-mai l t o J
. Howar dfro mR
. Ramsey , date dApri l 8 , 2008 , regardin g pla n t o mov e forwar dwith atemporar y locatio n for Rhyth mShine
. Exhibi t 29 : Lette r

t o R
. Regalad o fro mA
. Robinson , MBELDEF , date dApri l 15 , 2008 , regardin g lega l representatio n o f J& B Enterprises , an dreques t t o informall y resolv e J& B Enterprises ' issues
. Exhibi t 30 : Lette r

t o A
. Robinson , MBELDEF , fro mR
. Watson , MNA A Senio r Vic e Presiden t an dChie f

Lega l Officer , date dJun e 6 , 2008 , regardin g th e lac k o f succes s i n schedulin g a

n informal resolutio n meeting , an dinten t t o compet e th e sho e shin e concession , an dno t

rene w J& B Enterprises ' contrac t with MNAA
. Exhibi t 31 : Photo s o f

J&B' s sho e shin e stands~ 2 photo s o f B Concours e insid e CN N Newsstand , an d2 photo s o f Complainant' s C-Concours e location
. Exhibi t 32 : DB E Certificat e Document s for Olympi c Supply , Apri l 2006
. Exhibi t 33 : ACDB E Join t

Ventur e Guidanc e fro mFA A issue dJul y 17 , 2008
. Exhibi t 34 : Memorandu mt o Rebecc aRamse y fro mMichell e Tato m(forme r DBEL O a

t MNAA) , date dJun e 8 , 2006 , regardin g th e assessmen t o f eac h proposer' s respons e t o th e ACDB E participatio n goa l an drequirement s i n th e News , Gift , an dSpecialty Retai l concessio n RFP
. Exhibi t 35 : Lette r

t o J& B Enterprise s fro mJ
. Howard , date dSeptembe r 11 , 2007 , regardin g J& B Enterprises ' lac k o f respons e t o Mr
. Howard' s reques t for ameeting
. Exhibi t 36 : E-mai l t o R
. Ramse y fro mB
. Dmett , date dNovembe r 29 , 2007 , regardin g J& B Enterprises ' respons e t o MNAA' s proposa l t o mov e i t t o anothe r

location
. Exhibi t 37 : Hudson/Olympi c DB E Participatio n Repor t F Y 2008
.
Ite mlO A Novembe r 6 , 2008 , Notic e o f

Chang e o f

Addres s for

Attome y for

Responden t Metropolita n Nashvill e Airport Authority , Arthu r

P
. Berg , KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWEL L LLP
. Ite m1 1 FA A AI P Gran t Histor y for

MNAA , 200 6 throug h 2008
.

### Ite m1 2 MNAA' s UniformRepor t o f ACDB E Participatio n for F Y 200 6 (Octobe r

1 , 200 5 t o Septembe r

30 , 2006) ; F Y 200 7 (October 1 , 200 6 t o Septembe r

30 , 2007) ; an d F Y 200 8 (Octobe r

1 , 200 7 t o Septembe r

30 , 2008) ; Lis t

o f ACDBE s b y name , concessio n type , concessio n receipts , an drace/ethnicit y i n F Y 200 7 for th e MNAA , fromFAA' s DOOR S database
. Ite m1 3 Decembe r 11 , 2008 , Complainant' s Reques t for A n Extensio n o f

Tim e t o retai n substitut e counsel
. Ite m1 4 Decembe r 23 , 2008 , Responden t

Metropolita n Nashvill e Airport Authority' s Oppositio n t o Complainant' s Motion for A n Extensio n o f

Time
. Ite m1 5 Januar y 8 , 2009 , FA A Order , denyin g Complainant' s reques t fo r extensio n o f time
. Ite m1 6 Januar y 9 , 2009 , Notic e fro mRaymon dG
. Prince , attome y a t law , PRINC E & HELLINGER , PC , Nashville , Tennessee , notifyin g partie s that h e ha s no t

bee n retaine db y Complainant , an ddoe s no t represent , an dwil l no t

b e presentin g Complainan t

i n thi s matter . Ite m1 7 Marc h 10 , 2009 , FA A Notic e o f Extensio n o f

Time , notifyin g partie s that Director' s Determinatio n wil l b e issue do n o r befor e Ma y 5 , 2009
. Ite m1 8 O n May 5 , 2009 , th e FA A Issue dit s Director' s Determination
. Ite m1 9 O n Jun e 3 , 2009 , Complainan t sough t a n extensio n o f

tim e t o file a

n appea l o f th e Director' s Determination
. Ite m2 0 O n Jun e 15 , 2009 , th e FA A extende dJ&B' s tim e t o appea l to Jul y 8 , 2009
. Ite m2 1 O n Jul y 8 , 2009 , Complainan t filedit s Appea l o f

th e Director' s Determination
. Ite m2 2 O n Jul y 8 , 2009 , Complainan t filedit s Motio n t o Supplemen t th e Record
. Complainan t

include dth e followin g attache dexhibit s with it s motion
. Th e followin g attachment s wer e not reference dnumericall y o r alphabetically
. Th e document s ar e presente dbelo w i n th e orde r foun di n th e Complainant' s motion
.

- Januar y 5 , 2009 , Lette r

fro mJame s Dmett , President , an dBett y Dmett , Secretary/Treasurer , J& B Enterprises , Inc
. t o FA A Offic e o f th e Chie f Counsel , describin g events an dconversation s that occurre dbetwee n MNA A an dJ& B Enterprises
.

- Febmar y 9 , 2009 , Lette r fro mJame s Dmett , President , an dBetty Dmett , Secretary/Treasurer , J& B Enterprises , Inc
. to Elizabeth Newman , FA A Offic e

### o f Chie f Counsel , allegin g tha t

J& B Enterprise s i s bein g unfairl y charge d renta l fee s b y bot h Hudso n Grou p an dth e Nashvill e Airport
.

- Febmar y 17 , 2009 , Lette r fro mJame s Dmett , President , an dBett y Dmett , Secretary/Treasurer , J& B Enterprises , Inc
. t o Elizabeth Newman , FA A Offic e o f Chie f Counsel , describin g event s an dconversation s that occurre dbetwee n MNA A an dJ& B Enterprises
. -Jun e 19 , 2008 , Lette r

fro mA
. Robinson , MBELDEF , t o Rober t Watson , MNA A Senio r

Vic e Presiden t

an dChie f

Lega l Officer , respondin g t o Robert Watson' s lette r

o f Jun e 6 , 2008 , requestin g ameetin g t o resolv e outstandin g issue s regardin g th e shoeshin e concession
.

- January 9 , 2009 , Lette r

fro mMar aE
. Rosales , Attome y t o Michae l Freilic h describin g events an dinvestigation s at airport s acros s th e natio n indicatin g violation s o f

th e FAA' s Join t

Ventur e Guidance
. Ite m2 3 O n Jul y 14 , 2009 , Responden t filed aMotion for

Immediat e Stay an d Extensio n o f

Tim e T o Fil e Repl y t o Appea l an da n Extensio n o f

Tim e t o Fil e Reply
. Ite m2 4 O n Jul y 16 , 2009 , Responden t filedit s Opposition t o Complainant' s Motio n to Supplemen t

th e Recor dan dMotio n t o Strik e New Issue s O n Appeal
. Ite m2 5 O n Jul y 24 , 2009 , FA A Notic e o f Extensio n o f

Tim e for MNA A unti l Septembe r

2 , 2009 , i n orde r

t o file it s Repl y t o th e Appeal
. Ite m2 6 O n Jul y 27 , 2009 , Complainan t filed aRepl y o n Motio n t o Supplemen t an d Opposition t o Respondent' s Motion t o Strik e New Issue s o n Appeal
. Ite m2 7 O n Jul y 31 , 2009 , Responden t filed aMotion t o Strik e Complainant' s Unauthorize dRepl y T o Complainant' s Motion t o Supplemen t Th e Record
. Ite m2 8 O n Augus t 5 , 2009 , th e FA A grante dResponden t a n Extensio n o f

Tim e t o Fil e It s Repl y t o th e Appeal
. Ite m2 9 O n Septembe r 2 , 2009 , Responden t

filedit s Repl y t o Complainant' s Appea l o f th e Director' s Determinatio n an drenewe dit 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
. Ite m3 0 O n Septembe r 2 , 2009 , Responden t

filedit s ow n Motio n t o Supplemen t Th e Recor dO n Appeal
.

### -Affidavi t i n Support

o f Responden t

Metropolita n Nashvill e Airport Authority' s Motio n t o Supplemen t Th e Recor dO n Appeal : Rebecc aRamsey , Manage r o f Properties , MNAA
. Exhibi t A - Reques t

fo r Proposal s Fo r

Sho e Shin e Servic e Concession , May 200 9 Exhibi t B - Blan k

Concessio n Agreemen t Exhibi t C - SLB , Inc
. Executiv e Summary Exhibi t D - DB E Certificate s Ite m3 1 O n Septembe r 17 , 2009 , Complainan t

filedit s Respons e t o Respondent' s Motion t o Supplemen t

Th e Recor dO n Appeal
. Complainan t include dth e followin g attache ddocumen t with it s response : -Declaratio n o f

Jame s Dmet t

date dSeptembe r

13 , 2009
. Ite m3 2 Octobe r

28 , 2009 , FA A Notic e o f Extensio n o f

Time , notifyin g partie s that th e FAA' s Fina l Agenc y Decisio n wil l b e issue do n o r befor e Febmar y 16 , 2010
. Ite m3 3 Febmar y 16 , 2010 , FA A Notic e o f Extensio n o f

Time , notifyin g partie s that th e FAA' s Fina l Agenc y Decisio n wil l b e issue do n o r befor e Marc h 5 , 2010
. Ite m3 4 Jul y 17 , 2009 , Complainan t filedOppositio n t o Respondent' s Motio n fo r Sta y an d Extensio n o f

Tim e t o Fil e Repl y

### CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I HEREB Y CERTIF Y tha t o n Marc h 5 , 2010, 1 cause dt o b e place dwit h Federa l Expres s an dviaelectroni c mai l atru e cop y o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration' s FINA L AGENC Y DECISIO N addresse dto :
Mr
. 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 , New York

1002 2 Aberg@Kaplan.kirsch.co m (212)328-951 5 (646 ) 514-544 0 FA X Mr
. Thoma s J
. Henderso n Henderso n La w Firm , PLL C 166 6 Connecticu t

Avenue , N.W. , Suit e 31 0 Washington , D C 2000 9 tih@hendersonfirm.ne t (202 ) 742-744 7 (202 ) 742-777 6 FA X

Sharo n Lon g Airport s & Environmenta l Lai ^ Divisio n