Opinion ID: 2325341
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Department of Treasury's Statutory Authority to Approve the Camden Ordinance.

Text: Appellant does not contend that the Chief Affirmative Action Officer has no statutory authority to approve local affirmative action plans. The 1975 amendments specifically give the Treasurer the power [t]o require all State and local agencies awarding public works contracts to submit for approval their affirmative action programs. N.J.S.A. 10:5-36(c). Such a provision is superfluous if local government has no authority to promulgate plans that differ in some respects from the State Treasurer's guidelines. The Court presumes that the Legislature does not enact meaningless legislation. McGlynn v. New Jersey Public Broadcasting Auth., 88 N.J. 112 (1981); 2A Sutherland, Statutory Construction (4th ed. 1973) § 46.06. The Council focuses instead upon the specific decision of the Chief Affirmative Action Officer in approving the Camden ordinance. The Council first contends that although the State Treasurer is empowered to approve local affirmative action programs, the Law Against Discrimination provides no authority for approving local hiring goals more rigorous than the applicable county-wide goal. Neither, according to the Council, does the statute provide authority for establishing any resident hiring quotas at all. The Council also contends that even if the State Treasurer can approve local minority hiring goals, the Department abused its discretion by approving Camden's more rigorous goal without any showing of necessity. The standard of review applied to the State Treasurer's decision to approve the Camden minority hiring goal and resident quota is no different than the standard used to review any other final agency decision. As stated in New Jersey Guild of Hearing Aid Dispensers v. Long, 75 N.J. 544, 561 (1978), [a]dministrative rules and regulations have in their support the rebuttable presumption of validity if they come within the ambit of delegated authority, and .... unless such regulations are clearly ultra vires on their face, the party contesting them has the burden of proving their invalidity. [quoting In re Regulation F-22, Office of Milk Industry, 32 N.J. 258, 261-62 (1960)] As a result of this rebuttable presumption of validity, ... an ultra vires finding is disfavored. Id. The grant of authority to an administrative agency is to be liberally construed to enable the agency to accomplish the Legislature's goals. The agency has such implied incidental powers as may reasonably be adapted to that end. In re Suspension of Heller, 73 N.J. 292, 303 (1977). In this case, the scope of the State Treasurer's delegated authority is clear. The relevant law is an amendment to the Law Against Discrimination. It bars public works contractors from discriminating on the basis of age, race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, marital status or sex. N.J.S.A. 10:5-33. At the same time, the statute mandates affirmative action in public contracting by outlawing public works contracts with any party which has not agreed and guaranteed to afford equal opportunity in performance of the contract in accordance with an affirmative action program approved by the State Treasurer. N.J.S.A. 10:5-32. To this end, the State Treasurer is empowered to determine percentages of minority populations across the State, N.J.S.A. 10:5-36(a), and establish those populations as guidelines in determining the adequacy of affirmative action programs. N.J.S.A. 10:5-36(b). Unless the Chief Affirmative Action Officer's decision works to alter the terms of [the] legislative enactment or frustrate the policy embodied in the statute, N.J. Chamber of Commerce v. N.J. Elec. Law Enforce. Comm'n, 82 N.J. 57, 82 (1980), by impeding or acting arbitrarily with regard to promotion of equal opportunity in public works contracting through affirmative action, the decision will be affirmed.
The State Treasurer's affirmative action rules include employment goals for the hiring of minorities in each of New Jersey's 21 counties. These goals range from a low of 10% in seven counties to a high of 32% in Essex County, reflecting the differing minority populations in each area. The goals are clearly not equivalent to the minority populations in each county, since minority workers includes women, who we assume represent about 50% of the population in each county. The Camden County goal is 20%. The goal enacted by the City and approved by the State Treasurer is 25%. The State Treasurer's affirmative action rules also impose duties on contractors to undertake a good faith effort to comply with the minority hiring goal if the contractor fails to meet the minority hiring guidelines. N.J.A.C. 17:27-7.4. These duties range from seeking assurances of cooperation from unions to notifying minority referral organizations of hiring needs to notifying particular minority workers who are listed with the contractor as awaiting employment. N.J.A.C. 17:27-7.4(1), (2)(a)(b). The amendments to the Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-31 to 38, say nothing about the specific geographical areas upon which minority hiring goals should be based. The statute does not mandate the use of county-wide hiring goals, as opposed to regional or local goals. The statute instead gives the State Treasurer broad authority [t]o investigate and determine the percentage or population of minority groups in the State or areas thereof from which the work force for public works contracts is or may be drawn. N.J.S.A. 10:5-36(a) (emphasis added). The provision clearly is intended to give the State Treasurer flexibility in establishing goals. The State Treasurer has decided to establish county-wide goals, reflecting the different minority populations in the State's 21 counties. The use of county-wide hiring goals, however, does not preclude the adoption of different hiring goals within any county, particularly where the minority population varies significantly within different parts of that county. This is precisely the situation that currently exists in the City of Camden within Camden County. Official 1980 U.S. Census Bureau statistics reveal a marked difference between the minority populations of the two areas. For example, the black population represents 53.0% of Camden City, versus 14.3% of Camden County. Further, 19.2% of Camden City residents identify themselves as being of Hispanic origin. [5] Assuming that about half the city population is female, we can conclude that at least 75% of Camden City residents, and perhaps as many as 90% of city residents, are minority workers for purposes of the Camden minority hiring goal. To require that persons contracting with the city make good faith efforts [6] to hire 25% minority workers cannot seriously be said to adversely affect the legislative scheme ... [or] stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of the Legislature. Fair Lawn Ed. Ass'n v. Fair Lawn Bd. of Ed., 79 N.J. 574, 586-87 (1979) (citations omitted). To the contrary, we would question the fairness of any hiring practices that under such circumstances resulted in construction work forces with substantially fewer than 25% minority workers. The State Treasurer's approval of the 25% minority hiring goal for public works contracts with Camden City is therefore neither ultra vires nor an abuse of agency authority under the Law Against Discrimination.
The Council argues that approval of Camden's residency quota requiring 40% of all public works contract employees to be city residents is ultra vires because the enabling legislation does not contemplate any residency requirement. The Council notes the comprehensive criteria upon which the contractor may not discriminate, including age, race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, marital status or sex. N.J.S.A. 10:5-33(a). It concludes that since this list excludes residency, the Treasury Department has no authority to approve any affirmative action plan including a residency requirement. Local affirmative action programs doubtless contain many requirements that were not contemplated by the legislators who drafted the affirmative action law or the administrators who promulgated affirmative action rules. Such requirements may be authorized by the implied power of the localities under the Law Against Discrimination, see New Jersey Guild of Hearing Aid Dispensers v. Long, supra, 75 N.J. at 571, or by the general police power. They may or may not be constitutional or precluded by state statute. Clearly, State Treasurer approval of a local affirmative action plan pursuant to the Law Against Discrimination does not immunize the plan against constitutional and statutory attack. But as long as the local plan meets the minimum state requirements, N.J.A.C. 17:27-6.5, and does not frustrate the statutory goals of affirmative action, N.J.S.A. 10:5-32, and equal opportunity, N.J.S.A. 10:5-33, in public works contracting, State Treasurer approval of a local plan including such a provision is not ultra vires or an abuse of discretion. If the minority population of the City of Camden were less than that of the surrounding area, a resident hiring quota might impede the hiring of additional minority workers. The ordinance might then be found to stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of the Legislature. Fair Lawn Ed. Ass'n, supra . But to the contrary, Camden has a higher percentage of minority population than other areas of the county. As a consequence, a duty to hire Camden residents could only increase the likelihood that any contractor will meet the State Treasurer's minority hiring goals. We therefore hold that the State Treasurer did not act outside the scope of his statutory authority under the Law Against Discrimination in approving the Camden ordinance. We next address constitutional and statutory challenges to the affirmative action and resident hiring goals in the ordinance.