Opinion ID: 163083
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 1 Plaintiff, Concrete Works of Colorado, Inc. (CWC) initiated this action in 1992, challenging the constitutionality of an affirmative action ordinance enacted by the City and County of Denver (hereinafter the City or Denver). The ordinance established participation goals for racial minorities and women on certain City construction and professional design projects. Denver has amended the ordinance twice since this lawsuit was initiated but it remains essentially unchanged for purposes of this case. 2 In 1993, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Denver. See Concrete Works of Colo., Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 823 F.Supp. 821, 845 (D.Colo.1993) ( Concrete Works I ). After CWC appealed, this court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for trial. See Concrete Works of Colo., Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 36 F.3d 1513, 1530-31 (10th Cir.1994) ( Concrete Works II ). On remand, a bench trial was held and the district court entered judgment in favor of CWC on its claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. See Concrete Works of Colo., Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 86 F.Supp.2d 1042, 1079 (D.Colo.2000) ( Concrete Works III ). The district court enjoined Denver from enforcing the ordinance. See id. CWC's entitlement to damages was reserved and the district court directed entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. at 1044, 1079. Denver then brought this appeal. 3 Section II. of this opinion summarizes the challenged Denver ordinances and this litigation to date. Section III. generally presents the applicable law and the parties' positions thereon. In Section IV., we examine the evidence upon which Denver relies to support the ordinances. At trial, Denver presented historical evidence, statistical evidence, and anecdotal evidence which are discussed respectively in subsections IV.A., IV.B., and IV.C. In Section V., we discuss the legal framework used by the district court to evaluate Denver's evidence. Section VI. contains a discussion of CWC's rebuttal evidence, including its challenges to Denver's use of marketplace data and to the reliability of Denver's disparity studies. In Section VII., we address the question of narrow tailoring. 4 Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292(a)(1), 1 we reverse and remand.