Opinion ID: 1160921
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Whether the PSA requirement infringes ABC's constitutional rights of association and equal protection

Text: Relying chiefly on O'Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake (1996) 518 U.S. 712, 116 S.Ct. 2353, 135 L.Ed.2d 874 ( O'Hare ), ABC contends the imposition of the PSA as a bid specification violates its First Amendment rights to free association and free expression, because it compels contractors to abandon their merit shop philosophy and embrace union agreements in order to obtain work on the airport project. O'Hare, however, does not support the contention. In that case, the United States Supreme Court held a city may not, consistently with the First Amendment, retaliate against an independent contractor by terminating his contract because of his refusal to contribute to the mayor's reelection campaign and his support for the mayor's opponent. ( Id. at pp. 715, 721, 116 S.Ct. 2353.) Here the PSA requirement in no way prevents ABC or its members from freely expressing their merit shop philosophy and opposition to unions, nor does it coerce prounion expressions or associations. Nothing in the PSA stops ABC or its members from, or punishes them for, engaging in whatever political action or advocacy they wish. Although ABC members' election not to bid on the project might result in some loss of revenues to them, the First Amendment does not oblige the government to minimize the financial repercussions of such a choice. ( Lyng v. Automobile Workers (1988) 485 U.S. 360, 368, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 [statute barring grant or increase of food stamps for loss of earnings resulting from strike does not infringe on workers' associational rights].) Even if we could conclude the PSA somehow burdens ABC's political views, we observe that the high court in O'Hare recognized: Cities and other governmental entities make a wide range of decisions in the course of contracting for goods and services. The Constitution accords government officials a large measure of freedom as they exercise the discretion inherent in making these decisions. [Citation.] Interests of economy may lead a governmental entity to retain existing contractors or terminate them in favor of new ones without the costs and complexities of competitive bidding. A government official might offer a satisfactory justification, unrelated to the suppression of speech or associational rights, for either course of action. The first may allow the government to maintain stability, reward good performance, deal with known and reliable persons, or ensure the uninterrupted supply of goods or services; the second may help to stimulate competition, encourage experimentation with new contractors, or avoid the appearance of favoritism. These are choices and policy considerations that ought to remain open to government officials when deciding to contract with some firms and not others, provided of course the asserted justifications are not the pretext for some improper practice. ( O'Hare, supra, 518 U.S. at pp. 724-725, 116 S.Ct. 2353.) As discussed above, the Commission could reasonably determine the PSA would further the aims of the competitive bidding law and the public interest. To whatever extent the PSA specification might be seen to burden ABC's political expression, the Commission, in the words of the O'Hare court, could properly conclude the specification is `an appropriate requirement for the effective performance' of the task in question. ( O'Hare, supra, 518 U.S. at p. 725, 116 S.Ct. 2353.) Moreover, as the Trades Council observes, employers do not have a constitutional right to operate nonunion shops or associate only with unorganized employees. Federal labor law gives employees the right to organize and requires their employer to bargain collectively. (See 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5); see also Lab.Code, § 923.) In passing, ABC asserts the PSA violates state and federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection (U.S. Const., Amend. XIV; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7, art. IV, § 16) in discriminating against contractors and their employees based on their political beliefs. ABC abandoned these contentions by failing to raise them in its arguments before the Court of Appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 29(b)(1).) In any event, as noted, the PSA excludes no contractor or employee; any contractor, whether union or nonunion, is free to bid on the project. Consequently, ABC fails to establish that its members or their employees are denied equal protection under either the state or the federal charter. (See Associated Builders & Contractors v. Contra Costa Water Dist. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 466, 471, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 600.)