Opinion ID: 654597
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statistical Evidence of Racial Discrimination

Text: 50 There are two categories of statistical evidence here, evidence undisputedly considered by City Council before it enacted the Ordinance in 1982 (the pre-enactment evidence), and evidence developed by the City on remand (the post-enactment evidence). 51
52 The principal pre-enactment statistical evidence appears in the 1982 Report of the City Council Finance Committee and recites that minority contractors were awarded only .09 percent of City contract dollars during the preceding three years, 1979 through 1981, although businesses owned by Blacks and Hispanics accounted for 6.4 percent of all businesses licensed to operate in Philadelphia. 11 These statistics do not satisfy Croson because they do not indicate what proportion of the 6.4 percent of minority-owned businesses were available or qualified to perform City construction contracts. Under Croson, available minority-owned businesses comprise the relevant statistical pool. 488 U.S. at 501, 109 S.Ct. at 726. 12 Therefore, the data in the Finance Committee Report do not provide a sufficient evidentiary basis for the Ordinance. 53
54 The post-enactment evidence consists of a study conducted by economic consultant Andrew Brimmer to demonstrate the disproportionately low share of public and private construction contracts awarded to minority-owned businesses in Philadelphia. Brimmer's study provides the relevant statistical pool needed to satisfy Croson--the percentage of minority businesses engaged in the Philadelphia construction industry. 13 55 As a threshold matter, we are not certain the Brimmer study is post-enactment evidence. The study uses statistics for the three years immediately preceding enactment of the Ordinance. As the Contractors concede, the data used by Brimmer respecting MBE participation as prime contractors to the City prior to 1982 was before City Council when it enacted Sec. 17-500. Brimmer's simple mathematical conclusions respecting that data obviously were apparent to City Council at that time. Contractors Br. at 28. But because we cannot be certain the Brimmer study constituted pre-enactment evidence, we consider whether it was admissible as post-enactment evidence. The district court considered the evidence, but believed it insufficient to change the result. Accordingly, it did not comment on its pre- or post-enactment character. 56 Several courts have held post-enactment evidence is admissible in determining whether an Ordinance satisfies Croson. Coral Constr., 941 F.2d at 921; Harrison & Burrowes Bridge Constr. v. Cuomo, 981 F.2d 50, 60 (2d Cir.1992); Concrete Works of Colorado, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 823 F.Supp. 821, 836-37 (D.Colo.1993). As the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained in Coral Constr., were post-enactment evidence inadmissible, a municipality having [some] evidence would face the dilemma of deciding whether to wait the months necessary for further development of the record, risking constitutional culpability [to Blacks] due to its inaction, or to act and to risk liability [to Whites] for acting prematurely but otherwise justifiably. 941 F.2d at 921; see alsoWygant, 476 U.S. at 291, 106 S.Ct. at 1856 (O'Connor, J., concurring) (public employers are trapped between the competing hazards of liability to minorities if affirmative action is not taken to remedy apparent employment discrimination and liability to nonminorities if affirmative action is taken). 57 Consideration of post-enactment evidence is especially appropriate here, where the principal relief sought and the only relief granted by the district court, was an injunction. Because injunctions are prospective only, it makes sense to consider all available evidence before the district court, including the post-enactment evidence, which the district court did. Although we recognize the risk of insincerity associated with post-enactment evidence, we believe that risk is minimal here because the Brimmer study consists essentially of an evaluation and re-ordering of pre-enactment evidence--contracts awarded to minority-owned businesses in the three years preceding the Ordinance. For these reasons, we hold the Brimmer affidavit and study were admissible evidence. 58