PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
H.B. ROWE COMPANY,
INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
W. LYNDO TIPPETT, individually; P.
E. LEN A. SANDERSON,
individually; J. G. NANCE, in his
official capacity as Chief
Engineer-Operations of the North
Carolina Department of
Transportation; EUGENE A. CONTI,
JR., in his official capacity as
Secretary of the North Carolina No. 09-1050
Department of Transportation;
TERRY R. GIBSON, in his official
capacity as State Highway
Administrator of the North
Carolina Department of
Transportation,
Defendants-Appellees.
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATION FUND, INC.,
Amicus Supporting Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge.
(5:03-cv-00278-BO)
2 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
Argued: March 24, 2010
Decided: July 22, 2010
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
James A. BEATY, Jr., Chief United States District Judge
for the Middle District of North Carolina,
sitting by designation.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published
opinion. Judge Motz wrote the majority opinion, in which
Judge Beaty concurred. Judge Niemeyer wrote a separate
opinion concurring in the judgment. Judge Beaty wrote a sep-
arate concurring opinion.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Ralph William Kasarda, Jr., PACIFIC LEGAL
FOUNDATION, Sacramento, California, for Appellant.
Christopher Grafflin Browning, Jr., NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees. ON BRIEF: Kevin Van Parsons, SMITH, PAR-
SONS & VICKSTROM, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina;
James S. Burling, Sharon L. Browne, PACIFIC LEGAL
FOUNDATION, Sacramento, California, for Appellant. Roy
Cooper, Attorney General of North Carolina, John F. Mad-
drey, Assistant Solicitor General, Tiare B. Smiley, Special
Deputy Attorney General, Elizabeth Leonard McKay, Special
Deputy Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPART-
MENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Joshua Civin, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCA-
TIONAL FUND, INC., Washington, D.C.; John Payton,
Director-Counsel, Debo P. Adegbile, Matthew Colangelo, Joy
Milligan, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 3
FUND, INC., New York, New York, for NAACP Legal
Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Amicus Supporting Appel-
lees.
OPINION
DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge:
This case arises from the attempt by the people of North
Carolina and their elected representatives to end racial and
gender-based discrimination in state highway construction
subcontracting. The State’s statutory scheme—the product of
extensive study and refinement in response to developments
in federal law—requires prime contractors to engage in good
faith efforts to satisfy participation goals for minority and
women subcontractors on state-funded projects. Through
these nonmandatory, project-specific participation goals, the
State seeks to provide a fair opportunity for all subcontractors
to compete for public work.
Denied a contract because of its failure to demonstrate
good faith efforts to meet these participation goals, a prime
contractor brought this action, asserting that the goals violate
the Equal Protection Clause, and seeking injunctive relief and
money damages. After extensive discovery and a bench trial,
the district court held the challenged statutory scheme consti-
tutional both on its face and as applied. The contractor
appeals.
We do not believe that the State met its burden of proof in
all respects. But we agree with the district court that the State
produced a strong basis in evidence justifying the statutory
scheme on its face, and as applied to African American and
Native American subcontractors, and that the State demon-
strated that the scheme is narrowly tailored to serve its com-
pelling interest in remedying discrimination against these
4 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
racial groups. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we
affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceed-
ings consistent with this opinion.
I.
We begin with a summary of the statutory scheme and the
litigation at issue here.
A.
In 1983, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted a
statute setting forth a general policy promoting the use of
"small, minority, physically handicapped and women contrac-
tors" in State construction projects. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-28.4
(1983). The statute directed the North Carolina Department of
Transportation ("the Department") and other State agencies to
"encourage and promote" this policy. Id. In 1989 and 1990,
the legislature amended section 136-28.4 to set specific par-
ticipation goals on State transportation construction contracts,
first for minority-owned businesses (10 percent) and then for
women-owned businesses (5 percent). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-
28.4(b) (1990). The Department promulgated and imple-
mented regulations pursuant to section 136-28.4 titled "Mi-
nority Business Enterprise and Women Business Enterprise
Programs for Highway and Bridge Construction Contracts"
(collectively "the Program"). 19A N.C. Admin. Code
2D.1101 (1997). The North Carolina statutory scheme largely
mirrored the federal Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
("DBE") program, with which every state must comply in
awarding highway construction contracts that utilize federal
funds.1 For example, as in the DBE program, a prime contrac-
1
Federal highway statutes require that states set aside a portion of fed-
eral highway construction funds for payment to businesses owned and
controlled by "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals." E.g.,
Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987,
Pub. L. No. 100-17, § 106(c), 101 Stat. 132, 145 (1987); see also 49
C.F.R. § 26.5 (2010). Federal courts of appeal have uniformly upheld the
federal DBE program against equal-protection challenges. See, e.g., Ada-
rand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 228 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2000).
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 5
tor in North Carolina would be excused from the specific sub-
contracting participation goals by demonstrating good faith
efforts to attain such goals. See id. at 2D.1110; 49 C.F.R.
§ 26.53 (1999).
In 1991, a North Carolina prime contractor challenged in
state court the constitutionality of section 136-28.4. See Dick-
erson Carolina, Inc. v. Harrelson, 443 S.E.2d 127 (N.C. Ct.
App. 1994), appeal dismissed, 448 S.E.2d 520 (N.C. 1994).
The contractor relied on City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.,
488 U.S. 469, 493-94 (1989), which affirmed the principle
that courts must apply strict scrutiny to all race-conscious leg-
islation. In Croson the Supreme Court recognized that "[i]t is
beyond dispute that any public entity, state or federal, has a
compelling interest in assuring that public dollars, drawn from
the tax contributions of all citizens, do not serve to finance the
evil of private prejudice." Id. at 492. The Court held, how-
ever, that to remedy such discrimination through race-
conscious measures, a governmental entity must identify with
"some specificity" the racial discrimination it seeks to remedy
and present a "strong basis in evidence for its conclusion that
remedial action [is] necessary." Id. at 500, 504 (internal quo-
tation marks omitted).2 In response to the Dickerson lawsuit,
the State suspended operation of section 136-28.4.
The North Carolina General Assembly then commissioned
a national research and consulting firm, MGT of America
("MGT"), to study the State’s transportation construction
industry. In 1993, MGT completed that study, which con-
cluded that North Carolina minority and women subcontrac-
tors suffered from discrimination in the road construction
industry and were underutilized in State contracts.
After receiving the 1993 study, the General Assembly
2
Applying these principles, the Croson Court found unconstitutional a
municipal "set-aside" ordinance that required general contractors to sub-
contract 30 percent of city projects to minorities. 488 U.S. at 477, 505.
6 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
directed the Department to reimplement the Program to
achieve the goals of section 136-28.4. The Department
adopted various changes that the 1993 study suggested, but it
set the same overall percentage goals for participation by
minority and women subcontractors. Nevertheless, in 1994
the Court of Appeals of North Carolina dismissed as moot the
pending legal challenge to the statute in Dickerson. 443
S.E.2d at 132.
In 1998, the General Assembly commissioned MGT to
update the 1993 study. The resulting 1998 study concluded
that minority and women subcontractors remained underutil-
ized in state-funded road construction.
B.
Four years later, in October 2002, the Department sought
bids on a project to relocate a road in Iredell County, North
Carolina. Pursuant to the Program, as reimplemented in 1993,
the Department set participation goals for minority and
women subcontractors of 10 percent and 5 percent, respec-
tively. H.B. Rowe Co., Inc. ("Rowe"), a general contractor
owned and operated by a white male, submitted the lowest bid
on the project. Rowe’s bid included 6.6 percent women sub-
contractor participation, but no minority subcontractor partici-
pation. The Department rejected Rowe’s bid in favor of a
slightly higher bid, which included 9.3 percent women sub-
contractor participation and 3.3 percent minority subcontrac-
tor participation.
The Department denied Rowe the contract because Rowe
failed to demonstrate good faith efforts to attain the pre-
designated levels of minority participation on the project. At
the time of Rowe’s submission, assertedly documenting its
good faith efforts, it was one of only 13 submissions that the
Department rejected. These 13 rejections constituted 1.5 per-
cent of the 878 good faith efforts submissions that the Depart-
ment had considered.
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 7
The Department determined that, with respect to good faith
efforts, Rowe’s submission contained discrepancies in the
number of minority subcontractors Rowe solicited, did not
demonstrate solicitation of enough minority subcontractors to
allow for consideration of a fair number of quotes, did not
adequately describe the subcontracting work available for the
Iredell project, and evidenced no strategy for meeting the
Department’s participation goals. Rowe unsuccessfully
appealed the denial to the State Highway Administrator.
In April 2003, Rowe filed this action in federal district
court against the Department and several State officials,
including Governor Michael F. Easley and Chief Engineer-
Operations W.S. Varnedoe3 in their official capacities, and
Secretary of Transportation W. Lyndo Tippett and State High-
way Administrator Len A. Sanderson in their official and
individual capacities. Alleging that the statute and the defen-
dants’ actions in administering the Program violated Rowe’s
rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, Rowe challenged the constitutionality of section
136-28.4 on its face and as applied. (Rowe also alleged a vio-
lation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2006), which Rowe has aban-
doned on appeal.) Rowe sought a declaratory judgment that
the statutory scheme was invalid, an injunction against its
continued administration, and compensatory and punitive
damages.
C.
In 2004, at the State’s request, MGT prepared and issued
its third study of subcontractors employed in North Carolina’s
highway construction industry. As detailed within, the 2004
study marshaled a wealth of evidence to conclude that dispari-
ties in the utilization of minority subcontractors persisted. In
3
Rowe’s initial complaint named J.D. Goins as the then Chief Engineer
of Operations at the Department. On Rowe’s motion, Varnedoe was sub-
stituted for Goins after Varnedoe became Chief Engineer.
8 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
response to this study, the General Assembly substantially
amended section 136-28.4, and the Governor signed the
amended statute into law on August 27, 2006. The new statute
modified the previous statutory scheme in five important
respects.
First, the amended statute expressly conditions implemen-
tation of any participation goals on the findings of the 2004
study. Section 136-28.4, as amended, authorizes remedial
action only in instances in which the study "show[s] a strong
basis in evidence of ongoing effects of past or present dis-
crimination that prevents or limits disadvantaged minority-
owned and women-owned businesses from participating" as
subcontractors in state-funded projects "at a level which
would have existed absent such discrimination." N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 136-28.4(b) (2010). The amended statute also requires
that the Department, "to the extent reasonably practicable,
incorporate narrowly tailored remedies identified in the
[2004] Study." Id. § 136-28.4(b1).
Second, the amended statute eliminates the 5 and 10 per-
cent annual goals set forth in the predecessor statute. Instead,
as amended, the statute simply requires the Department to
"establish annual aspirational goals, not mandatory goals, . . .
for the overall participation in contracts by disadvantaged
minority-owned and women-owned businesses . . . [that] shall
not be applied rigidly on specific contracts or projects." Id.
The statute further mandates that the Department set
"contract-specific goals or project-specific goals . . . for each
disadvantaged minority-owned and women-owned business
category that has demonstrated significant disparity in con-
tract utilization" based on availability, as determined by the
study. Id.
Third, the amended statute narrows the definition of "mi-
nority" to encompass only those groups that have suffered dis-
crimination. The statute had previously defined "minority" to
include, among others, African Americans, Hispanic Ameri-
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 9
cans, Portuguese Americans, Asian Americans, American
Indians, and Alaskan Natives. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-
28.4(c) (1989) (incorporating definition of "minority" con-
tained in 49 C.F.R. § 23.5(i) (1989)). The amended statute
replaces this list by defining "minority" as "only those racial
or ethnicity classifications identified by [the] study . . . that
have been subjected to discrimination in the relevant market-
place and that have been adversely affected in their ability to
obtain contracts with the Department." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-
28.4(c)(2) (2010).
Fourth, the amended statute requires the Department to re-
evaluate the Program over time and respond to changing con-
ditions. Accordingly, the Department must conduct a study
similar to the 2004 study at least every five years. Id. § 136-
28.4(b). The Department must then promulgate rules "consis-
tent with findings made in the . . . subsequent studies," id.
§ 136-28.4(b1), and must report to the General Assembly
after the release of each study "for the purpose of determining
whether the provisions of [the statute] should continue in
force and effect," id. § 136-28.4(d).
Finally, the amended statute contains a sunset provision. As
amended in 2006, the statute was set to expire on August 31,
2009. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-28.4(e) (2009). The General
Assembly subsequently extended the sunset provision to
August 31, 2010. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-28.4(e) (2010).
Several aspects of the Department-run Program remain
unchanged. For example, a prime contractor that does not
meet project-specific goals may still demonstrate compliance
by making good faith efforts to solicit minority and women
subcontractors. 19A N.C. Admin. Code 2D.1110 (2010).
In evaluating whether a bidder has made good faith efforts,
the Department considers, inter alia, whether the bidder
"[s]olicit[ed] [minority and women subcontractors] through
all reasonable and available means" and allowed sufficient
10 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
time for them to respond; followed up on these solicitations;
selected work to be performed by minority and women sub-
contractors to increase the likelihood of meeting Program
goals; provided minority and women subcontractors with ade-
quate information about the "plans, specifications, and
requirements of the contract"; negotiated in good faith with
minority and women subcontractors; accepted quotes from
minority and women subcontractors in the absence of sound
reasons to reject them; and assisted minority and women sub-
contractors in obtaining bonding, lines of credit, or insurance.
See 49 C.F.R. § 26 app. A, cited in 19A N.C. Admin. Code
2D.1110.
As discussed above, the good faith requirement proved per-
missive in practice: prime contractors satisfied the require-
ment in 98.5 percent of cases, failing to do so in only 13 of
878 attempts.
D.
In light of the 2006 amendments to section 136-28.4, the
defendants moved to dismiss all or part of this action on vari-
ous grounds.
Initially, they contended that the 2006 amendments ren-
dered Rowe’s attack on the statute moot. The district court
rejected this argument. The court recognized that the amended
statute did "away with many of [the] alleged shortcomings" of
its predecessor and so "undoubtedly differs from the old [stat-
ute] in material respects." H.B. Rowe Co., Inc. v. Tippett, No.
5:03-CV-278-BO at 20-21 (E.D.N.C. March 29, 2007). But
the court concluded that Rowe’s suit continued to present a
live controversy because the statutory amendments did not
resolve "the primary problem which the Plaintiff first com-
plained of: the use of remedial race- and gender-based prefer-
ences without valid evidence of past racial and gender
discrimination." Id. at 21-22. The court reasoned that Rowe
could "[i]n that sense" contend that the amended statutory
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 11
scheme "‘disadvantage[s] [it] in the same fundamental way.’"
Id. at 22 (quoting Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Con-
tractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656, 662
(1993)).
The district court did, however, dismiss all of Rowe’s
claims for damages against the State officials sued in their
individual capacities, concluding that qualified immunity
barred these claims. The court also dismissed Easley from the
suit, holding that he had no role in implementing the chal-
lenged statutory scheme. In addition, the court dismissed
Rowe’s claims against the Department, as well as its damages
claims against the individual defendants in their official
capacities, holding them barred by sovereign immunity. But
the court concluded that Rowe’s claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief against Tippett, Varnedoe, and Sanderson
survived under the doctrine set forth in Ex Parte Young, 209
U.S. 123 (1908).
After extensive discovery and a four-day bench trial at
which numerous witnesses testified and over one thousand
pages of exhibits were admitted into evidence, the district
court upheld the constitutionality of the statutory scheme in
all respects. Rowe challenges this holding on appeal.4
4
Rowe also contends that the district court erred in granting qualified
immunity to the State officials. This argument fails. We agree with the dis-
trict court that a reasonable state official would not have been on notice
that section 136-28.4 violated the Constitution when Rowe submitted its
bid in 2002 or filed this action in 2003. See Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730,
739 (2002) ("[Q]ualified immunity operates to ensure that before they are
subjected to suit, officers are on notice their conduct is unlawful." (internal
quotation marks omitted)). Because the State had reevaluated the necessity
and scope of section 136-28.4 in light of Croson, and a state appellate
court then dismissed as moot the only challenge ever brought against the
statute, the "right at issue was [not] clearly established" at that time. Pear-
son v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808, 816 (2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
12 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
II.
Keeping in mind the statutory scheme and the rulings of the
district court, we turn to the legal principles governing
Rowe’s claims. As always, on appeal from a bench trial, we
review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its
factual findings for clear error. See PCS Phosphate Co., Inc.
v. Norfolk S. Corp., 559 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2009).
A.
"Racial classifications are simply too pernicious to permit
any but the most exact connection between justification and
classification." Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S.
200, 229 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). For this
reason, courts subject all racial preferences—even those
intended to benefit minority groups—to strict judicial scru-
tiny. Id. at 226-27; Alexander v. Estepp, 95 F.3d 312, 315 (4th
Cir. 1996).
Although imposing a substantial burden, strict scrutiny is
not automatically "fatal in fact." Adarand, 515 U.S. at 237.
After all, "[t]he unhappy persistence of both the practice and
the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority
groups in this country is an unfortunate reality, and govern-
ment is not disqualified from acting in response to it." Id.;
Alexander, 95 F.3d at 315. In so acting, a governmental entity
must demonstrate it had a compelling interest in "remedying
the effects of past or present racial discrimination." Shaw v.
Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 909 (1996).
Thus, to justify a race-conscious measure, a state must
"identify that discrimination, public or private, with some
specificity," Croson, 488 U.S. at 504, and must have a
"‘strong basis in evidence for its conclusion that remedial
action [is] necessary,’" id. at 500 (quoting Wygant v. Jackson
Bd. of Educ., 476 U.S. 267, 277 (1986) (plurality opinion));
see also Podberesky v. Kirwan, 38 F.3d 147, 153 (4th Cir.
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 13
1994). As courts have noted, "there is no ‘precise mathemati-
cal formula to assess the quantum of evidence that rises to the
Croson ‘strong basis in evidence’ benchmark.’" Rothe Dev.
Corp. v. Dep’t of Def., 545 F.3d 1023, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(Rothe II) (quoting W.H. Scott Constr. Co. v. City of Jackson,
199 F.3d 206, 218 n.11 (5th Cir. 1999)).5 Rather, the suffi-
ciency of the state’s evidence of discrimination "must be eval-
uated on a case-by-case basis." Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).
A state need not conclusively prove the existence of past or
present racial discrimination to establish a strong basis in evi-
dence for concluding that remedial action is necessary. See,
e.g., Concrete Works, 321 F.3d at 958. Instead, a state may
meet its burden by relying on "a significant statistical dispar-
ity" between the availability of qualified, willing, and able
minority subcontractors and the utilization of such subcon-
tractors by the governmental entity or its prime contractors.
Croson, 488 U.S. at 509 (plurality opinion). We further
require that such evidence be "corroborated by significant
anecdotal evidence of racial discrimination." Md. Troopers
Ass’n, Inc. v. Evans, 993 F.2d 1072, 1077 (4th Cir. 1993).
Those challenging race-based remedial measures must "in-
troduce credible, particularized evidence to rebut" the state’s
showing of a strong basis in evidence for the necessity for
5
Like many of our sister circuits, we will review de novo, rather than
for clear error, the district court’s ultimate determination that the underly-
ing facts demonstrate a "strong basis in evidence." See Concrete Works of
Colo., Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 321 F.3d 950, 958 (10th Cir.
2003); Rothe Dev. Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 262 F.3d 1306, 1323 (Fed.
Cir. 2001); Majeske v. City of Chicago, 218 F.3d 816, 820 (7th Cir. 2000);
Contractors Ass’n of E. Pa., Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 91 F.3d 586, 596
(3d Cir. 1996) (Contractors Ass’n II); but see Eng’g Contractors Ass’n of
S. Fla. Inc. v. Metro. Dade County, 122 F.3d 895, 903-04 (11th Cir. 1997)
(reviewing the determination for clear error). This accords with our prece-
dent equating the compelling interest prong of strict scrutiny, a legal
inquiry, with the "strong basis in evidence" requirement. See Podberesky,
38 F.3d at 153.
14 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
remedial action. See Concrete Works, 321 F.3d at 959 (inter-
nal quotation marks omitted). Challengers may offer a neutral
explanation for the state’s evidence, present contrasting statis-
tical data, or demonstrate that the evidence is flawed, insignif-
icant, or not actionable. See Eng’g Contractors, 122 F.3d at
916; Contractors Ass’n of E. Pa., Inc. v. City of Philadelphia,
6 F.3d 990, 1007 (3d Cir. 1993) (Contractors Ass’n I); Coral
Constr. Co. v. King County, 941 F.2d 910, 921 (9th Cir.
1991). However, mere speculation that the state’s evidence is
insufficient or methodologically flawed does not suffice to
rebut a state’s showing. See Concrete Works, 321 F.3d at 991.
Finally, to satisfy strict scrutiny, the state statutory scheme
must also be "narrowly tailored" to serve the state’s compel-
ling interest in not financing private discrimination with pub-
lic funds. Alexander, 95 F.3d at 315 (citing Adarand, 515 U.S.
at 227).
B.
Precedent dictates, and the parties agree, that courts apply
"intermediate scrutiny" to statutes that classify on the basis of
gender. Adkins v. Rumsfeld, 464 F.3d 456, 468 (4th Cir.
2006); see also Miss. Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S.
718, 724 (1982). A defender of such a statute meets this bur-
den "by showing at least that the classification serves impor-
tant governmental objectives and that the discriminatory
means employed are substantially related to the achievement
of those objectives." Hogan, 458 U.S. at 724 (internal quota-
tion marks omitted). Of course, intermediate scrutiny requires
less of a showing than does "the most exacting" strict scrutiny
standard of review. See Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461
(1988).
Although the Supreme Court has established a "strong basis
in evidence" requirement for race-conscious measures subject
to strict scrutiny, courts "work without an analogous evidenti-
ary label from the Supreme Court" for gender-conscious pro-
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 15
grams. Eng’g Contractors, 122 F.3d at 909. Our sister
circuits, however, provide guidance in formulating a govern-
ing evidentiary standard. These courts agree that such a mea-
sure "can rest safely on something less than the ‘strong basis
in evidence’ required to bear the weight of a race- or
ethnicity-conscious program." Id.; see also Concrete Works,
321 F.3d at 959-60; Contractors Ass’n I, 6 F.3d at 1010;
Coral Constr., 941 F.2d at 931-32.
In defining what constitutes "something less" than a "strong
basis in evidence," the courts, though diverging in their choice
of words, also agree that the party defending the statute must
"present[ ] sufficient probative evidence in support of its
stated rationale for enacting a gender preference, i.e., . . . the
evidence [must be] sufficient to show that the preference rests
on evidence-informed analysis rather than on stereotypical
generalizations." Eng’g Contractors, 122 F.3d at 910; Con-
crete Works, 321 F.3d at 959 ("[T]he gender-based measures
. . . [must be] based on ‘reasoned analysis rather than [on] the
mechanical application of traditional, often inaccurate,
assumptions.’" (quoting Hogan, 458 U.S. at 726)); Contrac-
tors Ass’n I, 6 F.3d at 1010; Coral Constr., 941 F.2d at 932;
see also Mich. Rd. Builders Ass’n, Inc. v. Milliken, 834 F.2d
583, 595 (6th Cir. 1987) (striking down gender-conscious
measure where the defendants "presented no evidence that
[women-owned businesses] suffered a disadvantage in com-
peting for state contracts").
C.
When a plaintiff alleges, as Rowe does, that a statute vio-
lates the Equal Protection Clause, not only as applied, but also
on its face, the plaintiff bears a heavy burden. "The Supreme
Court has, as a policy matter, expressed a strong preference
for avoiding facial challenges." Richmond Med. Ctr. for
Women v. Herring, 570 F.3d 165, 171 (4th Cir. 2009) (en
banc). The Court "disfavor[s]" such challenges because they
"often rest on speculation," "run contrary to the fundamental
16 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
principle of judicial restraint," and "threaten to short circuit
the democratic process by preventing laws embodying the
will of the people from being implemented in a manner con-
sistent with the Constitution." Wash. State Grange v. Wash.
State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 450-51 (2008). In its
facial challenge, therefore, a plaintiff "has a very heavy bur-
den to carry, and must show that [a statutory scheme] cannot
operate constitutionally under any circumstance." West Vir-
ginia v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 289 F.3d 281,
292 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S.
739, 745 (1987)).
Of course, even if a plaintiff cannot mount a successful
facial challenge, it may nonetheless be able to demonstrate
that the application or enforcement of a statute is unconstitu-
tional. Where substantial record evidence exists as to the
application of the challenged statutory scheme, a court has
"the concrete facts necessary" to assess such an as-applied
challenge. See Herring, 570 F.3d at 180.
III.
Bearing in mind the legal standards applicable to Rowe’s
facial and as-applied challenges, we examine the evidence
offered by the parties at trial with respect to discrimination in
public-sector subcontracting, and the district court’s findings
of fact as to that evidence.
A.
We outline first the State’s statistical evidence of discrimi-
nation in public-sector subcontracting, including its disparity
evidence and regression analysis.
1.
The 2004 study performed by MGT, the national research
and consulting firm commissioned by the State, analyzed the
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 17
difference—or disparity—between the amount of subcontract-
ing dollars minority- and women-owned businesses actually
won in a market and the amount of subcontracting dollars
they would be expected to win given their presence in that
market. MGT grounded its analysis in the "disparity index,"
which measures the participation of a given racial, ethnic, or
gender group engaged in subcontracting. To calculate a dis-
parity index, MGT divided the percentage of total subcon-
tracting dollars that a particular group won by the percent that
group represents in the available labor pool, and multiplied
the result by 100. The closer the resulting index is to 100, the
greater that group’s participation. For example, if African
American subcontractors represented 30 percent of the avail-
able labor pool and won 30 percent of the subcontracting dol-
lars, the disparity index would be 100 or full participation.
Similarly, if African American subcontractors represented 30
percent of the available labor pool and won 15 percent of the
subcontracting dollars, the disparity index would be 50 or half
participation.
After Croson, a number of our sister circuits have recog-
nized the utility of the disparity index in determining statisti-
cal disparities in the utilization of minority- and women-
owned businesses. See, e.g., Rothe II, 545 F.3d at 1037-38;
Concrete Works, 321 F.3d at 962-63; W.H. Scott, 199 F.3d at
218; Eng’g Contractors, 122 F.3d at 914; Contractors Ass’n
I, 6 F.3d at 1005; Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc.
v. Coal. for Econ. Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1413-14 (9th Cir.
1991). Generally, courts consider a disparity index lower than
80 as an indication of discrimination. See Rothe II, 545 F.3d
at 1041; Eng’g Contractors, 122 F.3d at 914; see also 29
C.F.R. § 1607.4(D) (2010) (directing federal agencies to
regard a "selection rate" of lower than 80 percent as evidence
of disparate impact employment discrimination). Accord-
ingly, MGT considered only a disparity index lower than 80
as warranting further investigation.
After calculating a disparity index for each relevant racial
or gender group, MGT tested for the statistical significance of
18 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
the results by conducting standard deviation analysis through
the use of t-tests. As explained in the 2004 study, "[t]he t-test
determines if the relationship between availability and utiliza-
tion (suggested by the disparity index value) supports a con-
clusion of disparity. In other words, the results of the t-test
allow us to conclude if . . . the results found in the disparity
index represent real disparity." Put simply, standard deviation
analysis "describes the probability that the measured disparity
is the result of mere chance." Eng’g Contractors, 122 F.3d at
914. MGT considered a finding of two standard deviations (a
t-value of +/- 1.96) to demonstrate "with 95 percent certainty
that disparity, as represented by either overutilization or
underutilization, is actually present." See also Eng’g Contrac-
tors, 122 F.3d at 914.
2.
The 2004 study analyzed the participation of minority and
women subcontractors in construction contracts awarded and
managed from the central Department office in Raleigh.6 To
determine utilization of minority and women subcontractors,
MGT developed a master list of contracts mainly from State-
maintained electronic databases and hard copy files. MGT
then selected from that list a statistically valid sample of con-
tracts, and calculated the percentage of subcontracting dollars
6
MGT also gathered data from construction contracts awarded and man-
aged from the 14 Department divisions across the State, as well as from
preconstruction contracts, which involve work from engineering firms and
architectural firms on the design of highways. However, this data was
incomplete and did not allow for accurate disparity analysis. The State
concedes this point, see Appellee’s Br. 26-27, and the State’s expert testi-
fied at trial that he did not rely on this analysis in forming his opinions.
Accordingly, we omit discussion of division or preconstruction contracts
from our analysis. It is undisputed that the data for centrally-awarded con-
tracts does not suffer from this methodological flaw. The central data also
accounts for the majority of total State highway contracting dollars
awarded during the study period, and so provides a sufficiently accurate
picture of Department contracting as a whole.
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 19
awarded to minority- and women-owned businesses during
the 5-year period ending in June 2003.
To estimate availability—the percentage of a particular
group in the relevant market area—MGT created a vendor list
comprising (1) subcontractors approved by the Department to
perform subcontract work on state-funded projects, (2) sub-
contractors that performed such work during the study period,
and (3) contractors qualified to perform prime construction
work on state-funded contracts. (The study included the latter
group because according to the State’s expert, Dr. Vincent
Eagan,7 prime contractors are qualified to perform subcon-
tracting work and often do perform such work. Indeed, Rowe
itself performed substantial amounts of subcontracting work
on Department projects during the pendency of this litiga-
tion.) To ensure accuracy, MGT submitted its master list to
the Department for verification.
Based on the utilization and availability figures, the 2004
study returned the following disparity analysis:
7
Dr. Eagan compiled research for MGT’s 2004 study and has prepared
over 30 studies in this area. Rowe stipulated that Dr. Eagan qualified as
an expert witness in this case.
20 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
As these figures demonstrate, prime contractors underutil-
ized all of the minority subcontractor classifications on state-
funded construction contracts during the study period. The
disparity index for each group was less than 80 and, thus,
warranted further investigation. The t-test results, however,
demonstrated marked underutilization only of African Ameri-
can and Native American subcontractors. For African Ameri-
cans the t-value of 3.99 fell outside of two standard deviations
from the mean and, therefore, was statistically significant at
a 95 percent confidence level. In other words, there was at
least a 95 percent probability that prime contractors’ underu-
tilization of African American subcontractors was not the
result of mere chance. For Native American subcontractors,
the t-value of 1.41 was significant at a confidence level of
approximately 85 percent. The t-values for Hispanic Ameri-
can and Asian American subcontractors, 0.83 and 0.80,
respectively, demonstrated significance at a confidence level
of approximately 60 percent. The disparity index for women
subcontractors found that they were overutilized during the
study period. The t-value of -3.76 demonstrated that this over-
utilization was statistically significant at a 95 percent confi-
dence level.
The 2004 study also revealed that, on average, nonminority
male subcontractors won more valuable subcontracts than did
minority and women subcontractors. From 2000 to 2004, the
average subcontract awarded to nonminority male subcontrac-
tors ($272,829) yielded more than double the dollars won by
minority subcontractors ($111,106) and nearly triple the dol-
lars won by women subcontractors ($97,682).
To corroborate the disparity data, MGT conducted a regres-
sion analysis studying the influence of certain company and
business characteristics—with a particular focus on owner
race and gender—on a firm’s gross revenues. MGT obtained
the data from a telephone survey of firms that conducted or
attempted to conduct business with the Department. The sur-
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 21
vey pool consisted of a random sample of 647 such firms; of
this group, 627 participated in the survey.
MGT used the firms’ gross revenues as the dependent vari-
able in the regression analysis to test the effect of other vari-
ables, including company age and number of full-time
employees, and the owners’ years of experience, level of edu-
cation, race, ethnicity, and gender. The analysis revealed that
minority and women ownership universally had a negative
effect on revenue. African American ownership of a firm had
the largest negative effect on that firm’s gross revenue of all
the independent variables included in the regression model.
These findings led MGT to conclude that "for African Ameri-
cans, in particular, the disparity in firm revenue was not due
to capacity-related or managerial characteristics alone."
3.
To rebut the State’s statistical evidence of public-sector dis-
crimination, Rowe attacked the 2004 study’s methodology
and pointed to findings from the study that, according to
Rowe, undermine the State’s evidence of discrimination.
a.
Rowe argued that MGT’s availability estimate insuffi-
ciently accounted for the qualifications and willingness of
minority subcontractors to perform state-funded subcontracts.
See Croson, 488 U.S. at 510. The State estimated availability
of minority and women subcontractors in the relevant labor
pool using "vendor data"—data reflecting the number of
approved subcontractors in the State, subcontractors that per-
formed on Department projects, and prequalified prime con-
tractors.
Rowe’s expert, Dr. George LaNoue, testified that "bidder
data"—reflecting the number of subcontractors that actually
bid on Department subcontracts—estimates availability better
22 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
than "vendor data." However, Dr. LaNoue acknowledged that
the State does not compile bidder data. He further conceded
that bidder data actually reflects "skew[ed]" availability in the
context of a goals program that urges prime contractors to
solicit bids from minority and women subcontractors. Further-
more, Dr. LaNoue did not contradict Dr. Eagan’s previous
testimony that the only source of bidder data available esti-
mated a higher percentage of minority-owned businesses in
the relevant labor pool than did MGT’s vendor-based esti-
mate. In short, neither Rowe nor its expert has demonstrated
that the vendor data used in the 2004 study was unreliable, or
that bidder data would have yielded less support for the con-
clusions reached.
Dr. LaNoue did suggest another measurement of availabil-
ity: prime contractors’ assessments of subcontractor qualifica-
tions. However, he acknowledged that no such documentary
evidence exists in North Carolina. Moreover, when pressed,
Dr. LaNoue failed to explain how such data would not be
skewed by discriminatory barriers in the marketplace.
In short, Rowe’s challenge to the availability estimate
failed because it could not demonstrate that the 2004 study’s
availability estimate was inadequate. See Concrete Works,
321 F.3d at 991 ("[A challenger] cannot meet its burden of
proof through conjecture and unsupported criticisms of [the
state’s] evidence."). Further, Rowe presented no viable alter-
native for determining availability. See Sherbrooke Turf, Inc.
v. Minn. Dep’t of Transp., 345 F.3d 964, 973 (8th Cir. 2003)
("[Plaintiff] failed to establish that better data was available or
that [Defendant] was otherwise unreasonable in undertaking
this thorough analysis and in relying on its results.").
b.
Rowe next argued that alternative disparity evidence in the
2004 study disproves the existence of discrimination. Rowe
pointed to evidence that minority subcontractors participate
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 23
on state-funded projects at a level consistent with their avail-
ability in the relevant labor pool. For example, while African
American subcontractors represented 16.45 percent of the
workforce available for Department projects, they represented
14.9 percent of the firms participating on Department subcon-
tracts, resulting in a disparity index of only 91. The State
responded that evidence as to the number of minority subcon-
tractors working on state-funded projects does not effectively
rebut the evidence of discrimination in terms of subcontract-
ing dollars. The State pointed to evidence indicating that
prime contractors used minority businesses for low-value
work in order to comply with the Department’s goals. For
example, in support of this contention, the State presented
evidence from the 2004 study that African American owner-
ship had a significant negative impact on firm revenue unre-
lated to firm capacity or experience. Rowe did not offer any
contrary evidence or in any other way challenge this evidence.
The State further bolstered its position by presenting evi-
dence that minority subcontractors have the capacity to per-
form higher-value work. The 2004 study concluded, based on
a sample of subcontracts and reports of annual firm revenue,
that exclusion of minority subcontractors from contracts
under $500,000 "was not a function of capacity." During the
study period, well over 90 percent of the Department’s sub-
contracts were valued at $500,000 or less, with over 70 per-
cent valued at or below $100,000. Further, the State’s expert,
Dr. Eagan, explained that "‘capacity’ constraints do not oper-
ate with the same force on subcontracts as they may on prime
contracts" because subcontracts tend to be relatively small.
Cf. Rothe II, 545 F.3d at 1042-45 (faulting disparity analyses
of total construction dollars, including prime contracts, for
failing to account for the relative capacity of firms). Rowe
offered no objective evidence to the contrary.
B.
In addition to the statistical evidence set forth above, the
State also presented evidence demonstrating that from Sep-
24 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
tember 1991 to April 1993, during the Program’s suspension,
prime contractors awarded substantially fewer subcontracting
dollars to minority and women subcontractors on state-funded
projects. Between 1991 and 1992, for example, the total
amount of these subcontracting dollars declined 37.7 percent.
The decline was most significant for Native American and
women subcontractors. Meanwhile, the share of subcontract-
ing dollars awarded to nonminority male subcontractors
increased.
Rowe did not and does not argue that the actual data on
which the State relied in reaching these conclusions is flawed.
Instead, Rowe continues to argue that evidence of a decline
in utilization does not raise an inference of discrimination.
This is so, Rowe contends, because race- and gender-
conscious measures afford a competitive advantage that dis-
appears when such measures cease. However, the very signifi-
cant decline in utilization of minority and women
subcontractors—nearly 38 percent—surely provides a basis
for a fact finder to infer that discrimination played some role
in prime contractors’ reduced utilization of these groups dur-
ing the suspension. See, e.g., Slater, 228 F.3d at 1174 (finding
that evidence of declining minority utilization after a program
has been discontinued "strongly supports the government’s
claim that there are significant barriers to minority competi-
tion in the public subcontracting market, raising the specter of
racial discrimination"); see also Sherbrooke Turf, 345 F.3d at
973-74. Such an inference is particularly compelling for
minority-owned businesses because, even during the 2004
study period, prime contractors continued to underutilize them
on state-funded road projects.
C.
1.
The State additionally relied on three sources of anecdotal
evidence contained in the 2004 study: a telephone survey, per-
sonal interviews, and focus groups.
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 25
The telephone survey produced evidence of an informal
"good old boy" network of white contractors that discrimi-
nated against minority subcontractors. More than three-
quarters of African American respondents to the telephone
survey agreed that an informal network of prime and subcon-
tractors existed in the State, as did 74 percent of Native Amer-
icans, 71 percent of Hispanic Americans, and 67 percent of
Asian Americans. Notably, more than half of African Ameri-
can respondents believed the network excluded their compa-
nies from bidding or winning a contract, as did 35 percent of
Native Americans, 29 percent of Hispanic Americans, and 26
percent of Asian Americans. Tellingly, nearly half of nonmi-
nority male respondents corroborated the existence of an
informal network, but only 17 percent of them believed that
the network excluded their companies from bidding or win-
ning contracts.
A large majority of African American respondents also
reported that double standards in qualifications and perfor-
mance made it more difficult for them to win bids and con-
tracts, that prime contractors view minority firms as being less
competent than nonminority firms, and that nonminority firms
change their bids when not required to hire minority firms. A
majority of Native American respondents reported these same
inequities.
Further, 60 percent of African American respondents and
55 percent of Native American respondents believed that
prime contractors sometimes dropped minority subcontractors
after winning contracts. Nearly one-quarter of African Ameri-
can respondents and 29 percent of Native American respon-
dents reported that they themselves had been dropped by a
prime contractor after the Department awarded the contract.
Only 12 percent of nonminority male respondents reported the
same.
Interview and focus-group responses echoed and under-
scored these reports. Several respondents indicated that prime
26 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
contractors already know who they will use on the contract
before they solicit bids. An African American focus-group
participant stated that the "good old boy network" affects his
business because prime contractors "just pick up the phone
and call their buddies, the ones that they go deer hunting with
every Saturday morning . . . . And so, we find ourselves out
of that market completely." Another African American
respondent explained that prime contractors prefer to use
other less qualified minority-owned firms to avoid subcon-
tracting with African American-owned firms. A Native Amer-
ican subcontractor reported that prime contractors use their
preferred subcontractor regardless of the bid price. Several
minority subcontractors reported that prime contractors do not
treat minority firms fairly, pointing to instances in which
prime contractors solicited quotes the day before bids were
due, did not respond to bids from minority subcontractors,
refused to negotiate prices with them, or gave minority sub-
contractors insufficient information regarding the project.
2.
Seeking to rebut the State’s anecdotal evidence, Rowe
again attacked the 2004 study’s methodology. Rowe con-
tended the anecdotal data was flawed because the 2004 study
did not verify the anecdotal data and MGT oversampled
minority subcontractors in collecting the data.
As to its first contention, Rowe offered no rationale as to
why a fact finder could not rely on the State’s "unverified"
anecdotal data. Indeed, a fact finder could very well conclude
that anecdotal evidence need not—and indeed cannot—be
verified because it "is nothing more than a witness’ narrative
of an incident told from the witness’ perspective and includ-
ing the witness’ perceptions." Concrete Works, 321 F.3d at
989.
Rowe’s second contention also misses the mark. As our
precedent makes clear, anecdotal evidence simply supple-
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 27
ments statistical evidence of discrimination. See Md. Troop-
ers, 993 F.2d at 1077. Thus, the State’s expert, Dr. Eagan,
testified that the 2004 study oversampled representatives from
these groups "to get at the problems faced by women and
minorities." Surveying more nonminority men would not have
advanced the inquiry. Moreover, Dr. Eagan testified that
although the study oversampled minority groups, the samples
were randomly selected.
To rebut the substance of the anecdotal data on which the
State relies, Rowe pointed to evidence indicating that minor-
ity subcontractors enjoy excellent or good relationships with
prime contractors. For example, 75 percent of African Ameri-
can respondents to the telephone survey rated their experi-
ences with prime contractors as excellent or good, as did over
90 percent of Native American respondents. These responses
indicate that, when utilized on contracts, minority subcontrac-
tors enjoy positive experiences with prime contractors. But
they do not negate the State’s compelling anecdotal evidence
that minority subcontractors face race-based obstacles to suc-
cessful bidding.
D.
After consideration of the above evidence and extensive
argument of counsel, the district court granted judgment to the
State, upholding in all respects the constitutionality of both
section 136-28.4 and the Department’s administration of the
Program.
In its written opinion, the district court found as fact that
(1) "[d]isparity ratios [in the 2004 study] . . . highlighted the
underutilization of [minority subcontractors] by prime con-
tractors bidding on state funded highway projects"; (2) the
General Assembly relied on evidence "demonstrat[ing] a dra-
matic decline in the utilization of [minority subcontractors]
during the [P]rogram’s suspension"; (3) "anecdotal support
relied upon [by] the legislature confirmed and reinforced the
28 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
general data demonstrating the underutilization of [minority
subcontractors]"; and (4) "the average contracts awarded
[women subcontractors] are significantly smaller than those
awarded [other subcontractors]." H.B. Rowe, Inc. v. Tippett,
589 F. Supp. 2d 587, 596 (E.D.N.C. 2008). Given the evi-
dence outlined above, we cannot conclude that the district
court clearly erred with respect to any of these findings.
This, of course, does not end our inquiry. We must next
determine if these facts justify the court’s ultimate conclusion
that the North Carolina statutory scheme withstands constitu-
tional challenge.
IV.
We first address whether the State’s statutory scheme as it
relates to minorities survives strict scrutiny review.
A.
Strict scrutiny requires that we conduct "‘the most exacting
judicial examination’" of the evidence the State put forth to
support its minority participation goals. Md. Troopers, 993
F.2d at 1076 (quoting Wygant, 476 U.S. at 273). We have
done so and conclude, for the following reasons, that the State
presented a "strong basis in evidence" for its conclusion that
the minority participation goals were necessary to remedy dis-
crimination against African American and Native American
subcontractors.
1.
As previously explained in detail, the State’s data power-
fully demonstrates that prime contractors grossly underutil-
ized African American and Native American subcontractors
in public sector subcontracting during the study period. These
findings have particular resonance because since 1983, the
General Assembly has encouraged minority participation in
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 29
state-funded highway projects, and yet African American and
Native American subcontractors continue to be underutilized
on such projects.
Moreover, the disparity index in the 2004 study demon-
strated statistically significant underutilization of African
American subcontractors at a 95 percent confidence level, and
of Native American subcontractors at a confidence level of
approximately 85 percent. Although the probative force of the
evidence relating to African American subcontractors is
stronger than the evidence relating to Native American sub-
contractors, the evidence in the 2004 study for both groups
demonstrates a high likelihood of actual disparity.
The State bolstered the disparity evidence with regression
analysis demonstrating that African American ownership cor-
related with a significant, negative impact on firm revenue.
Further, as the district court found, the State demonstrated
that there was a "dramatic decline in the utilization of [minor-
ity subcontractors] during the [P]rogram’s suspension." H.B.
Rowe, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 2d at 596. Both Native American
and African American subcontractors experienced significant
declines in subcontracting dollars during that period.
To summarize, the State’s evidence showing a gross statis-
tical disparity between the availability of qualified African
American and Native American subcontractors and the
amount of subcontracting dollars they win on public sector
contracts establishes the necessary statistical foundation for
upholding the minority participation goals with respect to
these groups.8 See Croson, 488 U.S. at 509; id. at 502 (high-
8
We note that the probative force of the evidence is much weaker for
businesses owned by Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans, as the
disparity figures for these groups were significant at a confidence level of
less than 60 percent. Of course, the lack of statistical significance may be
due to the small number of these minority groups in the relevant labor
pool: MGT estimated that of the 1708 firms available to perform subcon-
30 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
lighting Richmond’s inability to show "what percentage of
total city construction dollars minority firms now receive as
subcontractors on prime contracts let by the city"); cf. Cone
Corp. v. Hillsborough County, 908 F.2d 908, 915-16 (11th
Cir. 1990) (finding statistical evidence of disparity in public
sector subcontracting dollars sufficient to defeat summary
judgment); Concrete Works, 321 F.3d at 984 (finding suffi-
cient evidence of discrimination in construction industry
despite overutilization of minority businesses on city projects
subject to goals program). Therefore, we next consider
whether the State’s anecdotal evidence of discrimination
against these two groups sufficiently supplements the State’s
statistical showing.
2.
The surveys in the 2004 study exposed an informal, racially
exclusive network that systemically disadvantaged minority
subcontractors. The State could conclude with good reason
that such networks exert a chronic and pernicious influence
on the marketplace that calls for remedial action. See Slater,
228 F.3d at 1170 ("As a result [of closed contracting net-
works], minority-owned firms are seldom or never invited to
bid for subcontracts on projects that do not contain affirma-
tive action requirements." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
In Maryland Troopers, we cautioned against inferring dis-
crimination from reports of cronyism absent evidence of
racial animus. 993 F.2d at 1077. Here, however, majorities of
African American and Native American respondents agreed
that prime contractors have higher standards for minority sub-
tracting work on state-funded contracts, only 9 or .53 percent were owned
by Hispanic Americans, and only 7 or .41 percent, were owned by Asian
Americans. But, the fact that such small percentages of firms, making up
less than 1 percent of all available firms, were underutilized (perhaps by
chance) fails to evidence the "significant statistical disparity" Croson
requires. See Contractors Ass’n I, 6 F.3d at 1007-08.
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 31
contractors, view minority subcontractors as being less com-
petent than nonminority businesses, change their bidding
practices when not required to hire minority subcontractors,
and drop minority subcontractors after winning contracts.
Together, these responses suggest strongly that the underutil-
ization of African American and Native American subcon-
tractors is more than a mere byproduct of misguided yet
color-blind cronyism. Rather, they indicate that racial dis-
crimination is a critical factor underlying the gross statistical
disparities presented in the 2004 study. Unlike in Maryland
Troopers, where we found "no . . . gross statistical disparity,
corroborated by . . . anecdotal evidence," id. at 1078 (internal
quotation marks omitted), the State here presented substantial
statistical evidence of gross disparity, corroborated by disturb-
ing anecdotal evidence.
3.
In sum, the State has met its burden of producing a "strong
basis in evidence" for its conclusion that minority participa-
tion goals were necessary to remedy discrimination against
African American and Native American (but not Asian Amer-
ican or Hispanic American) subcontractors. Particularly com-
pelling is the State’s evidence that prime contractors grossly
underutilized African American and Native American subcon-
tractors during the study period and that these subcontractors
are disadvantaged by a racially exclusive "old boys network."
In circumstances like these, the Supreme Court has made it
abundantly clear that a state can remedy a public contracting
system that withholds opportunities from minority groups
because of their race. See Adarand, 515 U.S. at 237.
B.
To withstand constitutional scrutiny, however, the North
Carolina statutory scheme must also be narrowly tailored to
achieve the State’s compelling interest in remedying discrimi-
nation against African American and Native American sub-
32 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
contractors in public-sector subcontracting. We have
identified the following factors as relevant in evaluating
whether a state statute is narrowly tailored:
(1) the necessity of the policy and the efficacy of
alternative race neutral policies; (2) the planned
duration of the policy; (3) the relationship between
the numerical goal and the percentage of minority
group members in the relevant population; (4) the
flexibility of the policy, including the provision of
waivers if the goal cannot be met; and (5) the burden
of the policy on innocent third parties.
Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305,
344 (4th Cir. 2001) (en banc). Finally, we consider a pro-
gram’s "overinclusiveness," Croson, 488 U.S. at 506, i.e., "its
tendency to benefit particular minority groups that have not
been shown to have suffered invidious discrimination," Alex-
ander, 95 F.3d at 316. We address each factor in turn.
1.
Narrow tailoring requires "serious, good faith consideration
of workable race-neutral alternatives," but a state need not
"exhaust[ ] . . . every conceivable race-neutral alternative."
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 339 (2003). The 2004
study details numerous alternative race-neutral measures
aimed at enhancing the development and competitiveness of
small or otherwise disadvantaged businesses in North Caro-
lina.
For example, the State’s Small Business Enterprise Pro-
gram favors small businesses for highway construction pro-
curement contracts of $500,000 or less. This program permits
the Department to waive the institutional barriers of bonding
and licensing requirements on such contracts. See N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 136-28.10. The Department also contracts for support
services to assist disadvantaged business enterprises with
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 33
bookkeeping and accounting, taxes, marketing, bidding, nego-
tiation, and other aspects of entrepreneurial development.
Indeed, Rowe identifies no viable race-neutral alternatives
that North Carolina has failed to consider and adopt. Notably,
the State has undertaken most of the race-neutral alternatives
identified by the federal Department of the Treasury in its reg-
ulations governing the federal DBE program. See 49 C.F.R.
§ 26.51(b); see also N. Contracting, Inc. v. Illinois, 473 F.3d
715, 724 (7th Cir. 2007) (upholding the constitutionality of a
program that, like this one, "use[d] nearly all of the methods
described in § 26.51(b) to maximize the portion of the goal
that will be achieved through race-neutral means"). We thus
conclude that the State gave serious good faith consideration
to race-neutral alternatives prior to adopting the challenged
statutory scheme.
Despite these race-neutral efforts, the 2004 study demon-
strated that disparities continue to exist in the utilization of
African American and Native American subcontractors in
state-funded highway construction subcontracting. These per-
sistent disparities indicate the necessity of a race-conscious
remedy. See Contractors Ass’n I, 6 F.3d at 1008 (upholding
against summary judgment an ordinance that was "enacted . . .
only after race-neutral alternatives proved insufficient to
improve minority participation in City contracting").
2.
As to the duration of the statutory scheme, the district court
found two facts particularly compelling in establishing that it
was narrowly tailored: the statute’s provisions (1) setting a
specific expiration date and (2) requiring a new disparity
study every 5 years. H.B. Rowe, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 2d at 597
(discussing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-28.4(b), (e)). We agree.
"The . . . program’s inherent time limit and [provisions requir-
ing regular reevaluation] ensure that it . . . is carefully
designed to ‘endure[ ] only until . . . the discriminatory
34 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
impact’ has been eliminated." Slater, 228 F.3d at 1179 (quot-
ing United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149, 178 (1987)).9
3.
The State has also demonstrated that the Program’s partici-
pation goals are related to the percentage of minority subcon-
tractors in the relevant markets in the State. See N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 136-28.4(b1). The Department has taken concrete steps
to ensure that these goals accurately reflect the availability of
minority-owned businesses "on a project-by-project basis."
First, the Department generates a report detailing the type of
work that it anticipates subcontractors will perform on a par-
ticular project. Next, a goal-setting committee consults its
database of certified minority contractors in the relevant geo-
graphic area capable of performing those types of work. Con-
sulting the report, the database, and its own members’
experience, the committee then sets a project-specific partici-
pation goal. Notably, this goal-setting process does not
mechanically require minority participation; in fact, between
July 2002 and February 2004, the committee set a goal of zero
percent minority participation on approximately 10 percent of
projects.
Rowe contends that the Department does not do enough to
evaluate the relative qualifications of minority businesses and
whether or not they are willing and able to perform services
on particular projects. However, Rowe neither explains how
the careful process currently in place falls short nor offers a
viable alternative method. See Sherbrooke Turf, 345 F.3d at
973-74; Concrete Works, 321 F.3d at 991.
9
Rowe contends that the General Assembly’s one-year extension of the
statute’s sunset provision renders that provision meaningless. However, in
accord with the statute’s directive, the next disparity study was scheduled
for completion in 2009, and the extension simply allowed more time for
the completion and consideration of that study. At oral argument, counsel
for the State informed us that the newly completed 2009 disparity study
demonstrated continued underutilization of minority-owned businesses.
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 35
4.
As the district court recognized, the flexibility of the statu-
tory scheme is also a significant indicator of narrow tailoring.
The Program contemplates a waiver of project-specific goals
when prime contractors make good faith efforts to meet those
goals. See 19A N.C. Admin. Code 2D.1110. Good faith
efforts essentially require only that the prime contractor solicit
and consider bids from minorities. The State does not require
or expect the prime contractor to accept any bid from an
unqualified bidder, or any bid that is not the lowest bid. More-
over, prime contractors can bank any excess minority partici-
pation for use against future goals over the following two
years. Given the lenient standard and flexibility of the "good
faith" requirement, it comes as little surprise that as of July
2003, only 13 of 878 good faith submissions—including
Rowe’s—had failed to demonstrate good faith efforts.
5.
With respect to the burden imposed by the Program, Rowe
offers two arguments in support of its contention that the Pro-
gram places a substantial burden on prime contractors.
First, Rowe contends that the Program creates onerous
solicitation and follow-up requirements. However, at trial,
Rowe’s president testified that the company’s secretaries run
the solicitation program with no need for additional employ-
ees dedicated to the task.
Second, Rowe maintains that complying with project-
specific goals forces it to subcontract millions of dollars of
work that it could perform itself for less money. But Rowe
offered no evidence to support this claim. The State, on the
other hand, offered evidence from the 2004 study that prime
contractors need not subcontract work they can self-perform.
36 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
6.
Lastly, Rowe contends that the statutory scheme is "overin-
clusive." By its own terms, however, the statute expressly
limits relief to "those racial or ethnicity classifications . . . that
have been subjected to discrimination in the relevant market-
place and that have been adversely affected in their ability to
obtain contracts with the Department." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-
28.4(c)(2). In tailoring the remedy in this way, the General
Assembly did not "random[ly] inclu[de] . . . racial groups
that, as a practical matter, may never have suffered from dis-
crimination in the construction industry." Croson, 488 U.S. at
506. Rather, the statute contemplates participation goals only
for those groups shown to have suffered discrimination. As
such, North Carolina’s statute differs from measures that have
failed narrow tailoring for overinclusiveness. See, e.g., id.;
Associated Gen. Contractors of Ohio, Inc. v. Drabik, 214 F.3d
730, 737 (6th Cir. 2000) ("By lumping together the groups of
[African Americans], Native Americans, Hispanics, and
[Asian Americans] . . . , the [challenged statute] may well
provide preference where there has been no discrimination.").10
In sum, we have considered the relevant factors and con-
clude that the statutory scheme is narrowly tailored to achieve
the State’s compelling interest in remedying discrimination in
public-sector subcontracting against African American and
Native American subcontractors.
V.
We turn next to the question of whether the State’s statu-
tory scheme with respect to women survives intermediate
scrutiny.
10
Although the statute, on its face, does not name Asian Americans and
Hispanic Americans—two groups for which the State failed to provide a
strong basis in evidence—the State concedes that it certifies those groups
for inclusion in the Program. We address this infirmity in the State’s appli-
cation of the Program in Part VI, infra.
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 37
A.
The 2004 study’s public-sector disparity analysis demon-
strated that, unlike minority-owned businesses, women-
owned businesses won far more than their expected share of
subcontracting dollars during the study period. In other words,
prime contractors substantially overutilized women subcon-
tractors on public road construction projects. Moreover, MGT
calculated the overutilization of women subcontractors as sta-
tistically significant at a 95 percent confidence level.
Nevertheless, the district court found discrimination against
women-owned businesses in the public sector. The court
based its conclusion on evidence that women won subcon-
tracts that were, on average, worth one-third of the value of
subcontracts won by nonminority males. H.B. Rowe, Inc., 589
F. Supp. 2d at 596. The State also offered evidence that prime
contractors’ awards to women subcontractors in the public
sector declined significantly during the Program’s suspension.
This evidence, although probative of discrimination, cannot
overcome far more compelling evidence from the 2004 study
demonstrating prime contractors’ more recent, statistically
significant overutilization of women-owned businesses in the
public sector. In short, the public-sector evidence as a whole
does not evince the "exceedingly persuasive justification" the
Supreme Court requires. See United States v. Virginia, 518
U.S. 515, 531 (1996).
B.
Perhaps recognizing this, the State relies heavily on
private-sector data from the 2004 study demonstrating that
prime contractors significantly underutilized women subcon-
tractors in the general construction industry statewide and in
the Charlotte area. However, because the 2004 study provided
no t-test analysis on the private-sector disparity figures to cal-
culate statistical significance, we cannot determine whether
38 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
this private underutilization was "the result of mere chance."
Eng’g Contractors, 122 F.3d at 914.
Nor did the State present evidence indicating the extent to
which women-owned businesses competing on public-sector
road projects—the targets of the remedial statute—vied for
private-sector subcontracts in the general construction indus-
try. This evidentiary gap is troubling because prime contrac-
tors overutilize women subcontractors in the public sector.
Thus, women-owned businesses may well seek less private-
sector work.
The State also failed to present any anecdotal evidence
indicating that women subcontractors successfully bidding on
State contracts faced private-sector discrimination. See Md.
Troopers, 993 F.2d at 1077 (warning against inferring dis-
crimination from statistics alone); cf. Coral Constr., 941 F.2d
at 933 (relying on a lengthy affidavit from a woman business
owner describing her success in winning public dollars, but
her failure in private-sector contracting). Missing, too, is any
evidence that prime contractors that discriminate against
women subcontractors in the private sector nevertheless win
public-sector contracts. Cf. Concrete Works, 321 F.3d at 976-
77 (relying on anecdotal evidence that general contractors that
used minority and women subcontractors on public projects
refused to use them on private projects).11
11
We do not suggest that the proponent of a gender-conscious program
must always tie private discrimination to public action. See Ensley Branch,
NAACP v. Seibels, 31 F.3d 1548, 1580 (11th Cir. 1994) (holding that
intermediate scrutiny does not require showing government involvement
in discrimination); Coral Constr., 941 F.2d at 932. But see Mich. Rd.
Builders, 834 F.2d at 595 (requiring evidence of discrimination in public
sector). Rather, we simply hold where, as here, there exists substantial
probative evidence of overutilization in the relevant public sector, a state
must present something more than generalized private-sector data unsup-
ported by compelling anecdotal evidence to justify a gender-conscious
program.
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 39
Moreover, the State failed even to establish the amount of
overlap between general construction and road construction
subcontracting. Although road construction involves some of
the same subcontracting work as general construction, the
dearth of evidence as to the correlation between public road
construction subcontracting and private general construction
subcontracting severely limits the private data’s probative
value in this case.
C.
Finally, the anecdotal evidence that the State did present
falls short of justifying the Program’s gender participation
goals. For example, although 53 percent of women respon-
dents agreed that an exclusive network exists in the construc-
tion industry, only 27 percent believed that the network
excluded their firms. By contrast, 78 percent of African
American respondents and 74 percent of Native American
respondents agreed such a network exists, and 53 percent of
African American respondents and 35 percent of Native
American respondents believed that they, themselves, had
been excluded. Further, while a majority of African American
and Native American respondents believed that prime con-
tractors held them to higher standards than nonminority
males, only 40 percent of women respondents held this view.
D.
In short, with respect to the gender participation goals, the
State cannot overcome the strong evidence of overutilization
in the public sector. The proffered private-sector data fails to
establish discrimination in the particular field in question. See
Ensley Branch, 31 F.3d at 1580-81. Further, the anecdotal
evidence indicates that most women subcontractors in North
Carolina do not experience discrimination. Accordingly, we
conclude that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to
support the Program’s current inclusion of women subcon-
tractors in setting participation goals.
40 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
VI.
To summarize, North Carolina has put forth strong evi-
dence that discrimination against African American and
Native American subcontractors continues to limit their par-
ticipation on state-funded highway construction contracts.
The State has a compelling interest, indeed an "absolute
duty," to remedy this injustice, affecting as it does the distri-
bution of public funds. See Croson, 488 U.S. at 518 (Ken-
nedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)
(a "[s]tate has the power to eradicate racial discrimination and
its effects in both the public and private sectors, and the abso-
lute duty to do so where those wrongs were caused intention-
ally by the State itself").
The State has enacted a narrowly tailored response to this
problem that addresses discrimination while respecting the
virtues of the free market. Thus, unlike the City of Rich-
mond’s unconstitutional set-aside program in Croson, North
Carolina’s statutory scheme does not mandate that specific
percentages of subcontracting dollars always be apportioned
to minority groups or women. Rather, the statute prohibits the
Department from setting project-specific participation goals
"rigidly." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-28.4(b1). Instead, such goals
must be "consistent with availability of" minority and women
subcontractors. Id.; cf. Contractors Ass’n II, 91 F.3d at 607
(finding that city’s ordinance mandating across-the-board
goals for minority- and women-owned business participation,
based on percentage of minorities and women in the general
population, was not narrowly tailored). And if the realities of
the marketplace prevent a prime contractor from meeting
these project-specific goals, the State waives them on a show-
ing of good faith efforts to solicit and consider bids from
minority and women subcontractors. Only in the rarest of
cases has a prime contractor failed to demonstrate good faith
efforts to solicit minority or women subcontractors.
Moreover, as amended in 2006, section 136-28.4 does not
authorize the Department to set project-specific participation
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 41
goals unless the most recent disparity study, which must be
conducted at least every 5 years, demonstrates "a strong basis
in evidence of ongoing effects of past or present discrimina-
tion that prevents or limits disadvantaged [minority and
women subcontractors] from participating in [state-funded
transportation contracts] at a level which would have existed
absent such discrimination." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-28.4(b); cf.
Croson, 488 U.S. at 506 (faulting Richmond’s set-aside pro-
gram for "random[ly] inclu[ding] . . . racial groups that . . .
may never have suffered from discrimination in the construc-
tion industry"); Rothe II, 545 F.3d at 1049 (finding statute
with across-the-board 5 percent goal of minority participation
unconstitutional on its face because it was not supported by
strong basis in evidence).
Thus, the North Carolina General Assembly has crafted
legislation that withstands constitutional scrutiny. In light of
the statutory scheme’s flexibility and responsiveness to the
realities of the marketplace, Rowe has failed to establish "that
no set of circumstances exists under which [section 136-28.4]
would be valid." Salerno, 481 U.S. at 745. Indeed, given the
State’s strong evidence of discrimination against African
American and Native American subcontractors in public-
sector subcontracting, the State’s application of the statute to
these groups is certainly constitutional. Thus, Rowe has
"failed to shoulder [its] heavy burden" in challenging the
facial validity of section 136-28.4. Id.
However, because the State has failed to justify its applica-
tion of the statutory scheme to women, Asian American, and
Hispanic American subcontractors, we cannot find those
applications constitutional.12 When some applications of a
statute are constitutional, but others are not, the Supreme
12
We emphasize that although the 2004 study did not provide a basis to
enforce the Program with respect to these groups, we recognize the possi-
bility that at some point in the future the State may come forth with evi-
dence that would justify their inclusion in the Program.
42 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
Court has explained that courts should strive, if feasible and
consistent with the legislature’s intent, "to enjoin only the
unconstitutional applications of a statute while leaving other
applications in force." Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N.
New Eng., 546 U.S. 320, 329 (2006); cf. Contractors Ass’n I,
6 F.3d at 1008 (severing unconstitutional subsections of chal-
lenged statute, rather than striking down entire statute for
"overinclusiveness").
This course is entirely appropriate here. Under controlling
North Carolina law, it seems clear that "the remaining [appli-
cations] of the legislation can stand on [their] own," and that
"the General Assembly would have enacted the remainder
absent the offending portion." State v. Webb, 591 S.E.2d 505,
511 (N.C. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Applying
the challenged statute only to African American and Native
American subcontractors fulfills the statute’s purpose of rem-
edying the "ongoing effects of past or present discrimination"
in state-funded transportation contracts. N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 136-28.4(b). We are satisfied that the General Assembly
would choose to maintain the application of the statute to
remedy discrimination against any minority that continues to
suffer it. Mindful that "a court cannot use its remedial powers
to circumvent the intent of the legislature," Ayotte, 546 U.S.
at 330 (internal quotation marks omitted), we will respect the
will of the people of North Carolina and their elected leaders.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court
with regard to the facial validity of the statute, and with
regard to its application to African American and Native
American subcontractors. We reverse the district court’s judg-
ment insofar as it upholds the constitutionality of section 136-
28.4 as applied to women, Asian American, and Hispanic
American subcontractors. We remand to the district court to
fashion an appropriate remedy consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART,
AND REMANDED
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 43
NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment:
With genuine admiration for the care with which the major-
ity opinion addresses the principal issues—and I concur in
much of what is written—I remain troubled by contextual
issues that the majority has not addressed and that indicate an
effort by North Carolina to maintain a broad affirmative-
action program to assure minority representation and diversity
in public contracting, regardless of whether actual discrimina-
tion exists.
When we decide cases involving race-conscious and
gender-conscious government programs, we must remain
especially vigilant in recalling that such programs are pre-
sumptively unconstitutional, in violation of the Equal Protec-
tion Clause. See Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 643-44 (1993).
Moreover, to approve race-conscious or gender-conscious
programs simply to further a policy of diversity in public con-
tracting perpetuates, not eliminates, discrimination. Only
when there is clear evidence of actual discrimination should
we approve a state government’s race-conscious or gender-
conscious considerations, and only then when the program is
designed to remedy the discrimination.
It is noteworthy that the North Carolina program in this
case was created without any evidence of discrimination.
Rather, it was initiated in the 1980s with a quota system that
was the product of policies designed to spread public con-
tracting among minorities and women simply for the purpose
of racial and gender representation. The State only undertook
to determine whether actual discrimination existed in public
contracting when City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488
U.S. 469 (1989), made clear that North Carolina’s program
was constitutionally infirm. As a result, North Carolina has
never had—and, indeed, never will have—the opportunity to
determine whether discrimination existed in public contract-
ing absent the affirmative-action program’s effects on the
market. And even after concluding that discrimination did in
44 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
fact exist, the State reinstituted the exact same quotas that it
had previously used.
To be sure, the program has changed over time, but even
the immediate past version of the North Carolina statute
required that quotas be satisfied through the participation of
a broad array of ethnic peoples, such as Portuguese Ameri-
cans, Asian Americans, American Indians, and Alaskan
natives, regardless of whether evidence of discrimination
against those groups existed.
In its current form, the North Carolina statute creating the
affirmative-action program provides little to no guidance
regarding how it is to be implemented, leaving an unnerving
amount of discretion to a small number of Department of
Transportation administrators. The current statute uses the
2004 disparity study as a predicate to justify race-based and
gender-based remedial efforts and directs the Department of
Transportation to commission future studies to determine
whether future remedial efforts are necessary. Specifically,
the statute requires the North Carolina Department of Trans-
portation to "establish annual aspirational goals, not manda-
tory goals, . . . [that] shall not be applied rigidly on specific
contracts or projects." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-28.4(b1).
But the statute does not provide any range nor give any
criteria for these goals. Instead, it authorizes the Department
to act based solely on the Department’s own interpretation of
the 2004 study and future studies that the Department itself
must commission. As a result, Department administrators, not
state legislators, are those responsible for determining which
groups qualify as "minorities," and they are statutorily autho-
rized to make that determination when a group has been "sub-
jected to discrimination in the relevant marketplace" and has
been "adversely affected in [its] ability to obtain contracts
with the Department." Id. § 136-28.4(c)(2) (emphasis added).
These administrators are also given the power to determine,
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 45
in their sole discretion, adequate levels of representation in
obtaining public contracts for each minority group.
After the Department, in its discretion, adopts "aspirational
goals," it is given the additional authority to decide whether
prime contractors have made "good faith efforts" to meet the
aspirational goals, which in themselves are not to be "applied
rigidly."
The result is an amorphous exhortation to favor minorities
and women in public contracting. I question how it can be
concluded that actual discrimination is being addressed and,
if so, whether the means used can be sufficiently narrowly tai-
lored so as to comply with the Constitution. I take little com-
fort from the fact that the only meaningful oversight of this
process has been review by the federal courts following years
of litigation. While the majority in this case thoroughly scruti-
nizes whether the implementation of this program is genu-
inely aimed at fighting actual discrimination in state
contracting, the fact that such review is necessary demon-
strates that the State and its administrators have few if any
standards by which they ensure that their program complies
with constitutional requirements.
Our holding in this case is prime evidence of the problem.
We conclude that the state officials who used the 2004 study
to justify favoring Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, and
women had insufficient evidence of discrimination to do so.
That finding hardly instills confidence in the State’s continued
application of ad hoc standards purportedly designed to rem-
edy actual discrimination.
Moreover, the arbitrariness of the entire North Carolina
structure for determining when to consider race and gender is
displayed by the weakness of the statistical data on which
North Carolina officials have been willing to rely. Several
examples demonstrate this.
46 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
First, as noted by the majority, the data in the study regard-
ing contracts awarded by the Department’s division offices is
statistically invalid. While the majority of contract dollars
were handed out on contracts from the central office, the
division-let contracts represented approximately one-third of
the total value of state contracts. The program affords privi-
leges to women and minorities in bidding on such contracts,
despite the fact that no evidence whatsoever indicates that
these contracts were awarded in a disparate manner.
Second, the State asserts that a decrease in subcontracts
going to minority-owned and women-owned enterprises dur-
ing a period when the program was suspended indicates that,
absent preferences for minorities and women, discrimination
would take hold. But the significance, if any, in the drop in
the utilization of minorities and women during suspension of
the program is a classic chicken-and-egg problem. If the
underlying market for contracting in North Carolina was dis-
criminatory prior to implementation of the program, then the
drop in utilization during suspension of the program may have
reflected the fact that the program had helped remedy dis-
crimination. If, on the other hand, the underlying market was
nondiscriminatory, then the drop in utilization merely
reflected the removal of the unfair competitive advantage
given to minorities and women. See W. States Paving Co. v.
Wash. State Dep’t of Transp., 407 F.3d 983, 1000 (9th Cir.
2005).
We cannot resolve this question because no evidence exists
regarding whether disparities existed at the time the program
first began. It might be surmised that fewer minority-owned
and women-owned businesses will receive subcontracts on
Department projects if the program is suspended. But it can-
not be determined whether this change would reflect a return
to a fair, competitive status quo or a discriminatory market-
place. Moreover, regardless of how we interpret the drop in
utilization during the period of the program’s suspension, it is
rather bold, and perhaps even invalid, to assume that the mar-
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 47
ket will react to suspension of the program in the same man-
ner that it did 20 years ago.
In addition, even if we had reason to believe that the drop
in utilization during suspension of the program indicated
potential discrimination in the marketplace in the early 1990s,
it still could not justify the continued use of race-conscious
and gender-conscious policies. Affirmative action is only
appropriate to remedy past or ongoing discrimination, not to
stave off discrimination that might hypothetically occur in the
future. See Hayes v. N. State Law Enforcement Officers Ass’n,
10 F.3d 207, 217 (4th Cir. 1993) ("[E]ven when race can be
taken into account to attain a balanced work force, racial clas-
sifications may not be employed to maintain a balanced work
force" (emphasis in original)). Should intentional discrimina-
tion appear without this program, future remedial efforts
could become appropriate. But we should not ratify the gov-
ernment’s use of race in perpetuity based on mere concern
that such a result might occur. Were we to do so, we would
send the terrible message that our society has been and always
will be divided by race, that racial hostility is an inevitable
consequence of a heterogeneous society, and that government
cannot escape classifying its people by the color of their skin.
Third, as the majority rightly points out, the evidence
regarding state subcontracting practices indicates that women
are grossly overutilized. The State nonetheless contends that
women too must be benefited by affirmative action. To justify
this "aspiration," the State relies on evidence of purported dis-
crimination in the private building construction industry with-
out demonstrating how that evidence justifies a need for
affirmative action in awarding public contracts from the
Department of Transportation. Because this evidence comes
from a wholly dissimilar contracting market, it is inappropri-
ate to rely on it to draw inferences regarding Department con-
tracting. Moreover, the evidence from the private building
sector is at best mixed and therefore fails to justify affording
privileges to women.
48 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
Fourth, when considering only valid statistical evidence—
data that are actually tied to contracts awarded by the Divi-
sion’s central office—the evidence fails to justify the sweep
of preferential privileges afforded to each minority group and
women in the program. While each of the minority groups
were shown to be underutilized in terms of subcontract dollars
relative to their market share, only African Americans were
underutilized at a statistically significant level. Cf. Croson,
488 U.S. at 501, 509 (inference of discrimination justifying
remedial affirmative action may only be drawn by evidence
of "gross" and "significant" disparity). The majority recog-
nizes that Native Americans were underutilized at a confi-
dence level of approximately .15, a result that is not, in most
conventional statistical analyses, considered statistically sig-
nificant.* Similarly, the regression analysis concluding that
firm experience, capacity, and the like were not responsible
for the shortfall in contract dollars supported a finding that the
disparities were a result of race and not other factors only with
respect to African Americans. In other words, with regards to
Native Americans—as with Asian Americans and Hispanic
Americans—the study could not conclude with confidence
that the shortfall in contract dollars was not due to mere
*Here I follow the study in examining statistical significance at the .05
level. When a result is significant at the .05 level, it means that the proba-
bility of that result occurring by chance is 5% or less. See, e.g., Sherri L.
Jackson, Research Methods and Statistics: A Critical Thinking Approach
168-69 (3d ed. 2009). While statistical significance is arbitrary and imper-
fect, the .05 confidence level is often used in the social sciences as a
marker of when a result is a product of some external influence, rather
than ordinary variation or sampling error. See, e.g., Earl Babbie, The Prac-
tice of Social Research 483 (12th ed. 2010).
We need not decide here whether statistical significance at the .05 level
is the bellwether by which we determine whether the State’s statistics are
sufficient to support a compelling state interest. Rather, I merely point out
that the study’s results regarding Native Americans, Hispanic Americans,
and Asian Americans do not reach the level of significance that the study
itself sets out as the standard by which one could confidently conclude that
discrimination was at work.
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 49
chance, a lack of firm capacity, or some other race-neutral
explanation.
The Department, perhaps recognizing these infirmities,
chose to fill the gaps in its data regarding public contracting
by relying on inapplicable and therefore invalid data from the
private sector. This demonstrates the structural weakness of
the entire program. It is indeed disquieting that the State
believes that such a flimsy approach can justify governmental
decisionmaking based on race and gender. The majority
wisely rejects the State’s approach and properly holds the
State to the burden of demonstrating a strong basis in evi-
dence leading to an inference of discrimination in Department
subcontracting. Cf. Croson, 488 U.S. at 500. But the fact that
North Carolina has come to federal court and unrepentantly
relied on dubious—and, in some cases, completely discredited
—data to support its conjecture that discrimination is persis-
tent in state contracting might well lead us to conclude that
the State is now more interested in seeking a post hoc justifi-
cation for a program designed to engineer proportional race
and gender representation, regardless of discrimination, than
in conducting a good-faith, open-minded inquiry into whether
remedial efforts are necessary.
I do not doubt that North Carolina’s program was con-
ceived with the benign motive of preventing discrimination in
public contracting. But its approach of making contracting
decisions in favor of minorities and women, based on the
flimsiest of evidence, runs the risk of actually creating and
perpetuating discrimination.
While I would be more inclined to strike down the entire
program as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, I am
willing to allow, as the majority does, North Carolina the
opportunity to review and adjust its program in light of what
we have written.
Accordingly, I concur in the judgment.
50 H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT
BEATY, Chief District Judge, concurring:
I concur fully in the majority opinion in this case, and I
agree wholeheartedly with the conclusion that the North Caro-
lina Minority Business Enterprise Program, N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 136-28.4, is constitutional on its face and as applied to Afri-
can Americans and Native Americans. I add only a few addi-
tional observations.
First, I am compelled to note that, in my view, the inequi-
ties that are still evident in public contracting with respect to
African American subcontractors are a present reminder of
past racial discrimination in North Carolina, racial discrimina-
tion that included not only enslavement and the denial of full
personhood under the Constitution in the past, but that also
included legally sanctioned exclusion from the most basic
rights of citizenship within not-too-distant memory. See
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S.
265, 387-396 (1978) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (surveying the
history of racial discrimination in this country and the
Supreme Court’s role in sanctioning that discrimination in
Plessy v. Ferguson). In light of this history, the present dis-
parities in public contracting could not be viewed as the result
of non-discriminatory market forces, nor could the statistics
showing the exacerbation of those disparities when the Pro-
gram was previously suspended be viewed as reflecting a fair,
competitive status quo. Instead, in the context of history, these
disparities reflect the present effects of past discrimination,
and the State has recognized this, as discussed in the majority
opinion. In my view, the Program enacted by North Carolina
serves the highest interest of the State in attempting to remedy
this past discrimination and is fully consistent with the prom-
ise and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although
there is expectant hope that at some point the Program will no
longer be necessary to redress the present effects of this his-
tory, we cannot deny the history of discrimination or its lin-
gering effects.
H.B. ROWE CO. v. TIPPETT 51
Finally, I would note that the majority opinion has held that
the Program is unconstitutional as applied to Hispanic Ameri-
cans and Asian Americans, based on the lack of statistically
valid information presented by the State as to these groups.
However, as noted in the majority opinion, the State may, in
the future, include these groups within the Program if the
State undertakes additional study and determines that inclu-
sion of these groups in the Program is warranted. Likewise,
the majority opinion has held that the evidence presented by
the State would not establish a sufficient basis to justify the
Program as to nonminority women, even using intermediate
scrutiny. However, the State may very well include nonmi-
nority women in the Program in the future if sufficient basis
exists, and in making this determination, the State may con-
sider any underutilization of nonminority women that occurs
in the absence of the Program.
Therefore, I am pleased to concur fully in the majority
opinion in this case.