Opinion ID: 2325341
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Camden resident quota.

Text: 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.