John Goode's Troubles
[Reprinted from Issues & Views Summer/Fall 1999]
John Goode had no idea of what he was starting when he refused to have his
small business officially declared a Disadvantaged Minority Business
Enterprise. For one thing, he had no desire to waste his energies on the miles
of paperwork that would be required for such designation by the bureaucracy in
Austin, Texas.
For another, this black man wanted no part of the special favors set aside
for those who happen to have his skin color. He simply wanted to sell his
barbecue specialties at the city's Convention Center. Goode owned his own
restaurant, Mr. Bones Barbecue, in North Austin, and planned to set up a food
stand to take advantage of the crowds that attend the Center's special events.
In 1995, Goode signed a concessions contract with Fine Host Corporation, to
whom he was to give a share of his sales. He was pleased with the arrangement
and looked forward to the new venture. But then early the next year,
Affirmation Action came to Austin with a vengeance. The City Council passed a
law requiring racial quotas for all city contracting, which meant that all
companies doing any kind of business with Austin had to set aside a percentage
to minority subcontractors. This meant, of course, only certified minority
contractors, or those who would pass through an official bureaucratic maze of
qualifying litmus tests.
Pressure was put on the Fine Host company to get any blacks, hispanics,
Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, ad nauseum, with whom it had contracts, to
certify themselves as "official minorities." When Goode refused on
the grounds that he did not believe in set asides or Affirmative Action, he
rocked Austin's racial preferences boat.
Goode wanted to know why Fine Host could not continue to treat him as a
businessman on an equal footing with the other businesses with whom the company
dealt--as it was set to do prior to the city's new law. Why must his status
change, as if he were now some kind of charity case for whom the company must
be forced to "set aside" a percentage of its business? Why must he
now become a statistic needed by the company to fulfill the city government's
mandated quota of blacks?
To shorten a lengthy story, in August 1996, John Goode's contract with Fine
Host was terminated, putting an end to the revenues he had expected to earn to
help establish a second restaurant to be located near the airport. He decided
to make a legal challenge of the city's racial preferences, located a public
interest law firm, and filed suit for wrongful and unfair dismissal.
But this story was not to have a happy ending. In 1999, the lawsuit was
dismissed by an Austin federal judge, one well known for his liberal leanings.
Goode's ensuing appeal to the Fifth Circuit court was denied because, in a
bizarre twist of logic, it was ruled that because he is black, he cannot
challenge racial preferences. Goode's case is now on appeal to the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Update - May 15, 2000: On this date, John Goode lost his appeal to
the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court refused to review his case and provided no
comment.
Earlier, the AP reported on Goode's lawsuit in the 5th U.S. Circuit:
In 1996, Goode filed a civil rights lawsuit against the city and also sued Fine
Host, saying it unlawfully canceled the contract for racially discriminatory
reasons. A federal judge and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for
the city and Fine Host. The Appeals Court claimed that Goode lacked legal
standing to sue because he challenged an affirmative action program that
"benefited rather than injured him." Goode's lawyer says that this
ruling in effect would require minorities to accept a "stigma of
inferiority."
Copyright © 2001 Issues & Views
|
