The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 19-21

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 19... ... 19 based affirmative action programs to strict judicial scrutiny.248 After Croson, local entities that had not empirically demonstrated past discrimination against MBEs were unable to implement such programs without running afoul of the Equal Protection Clause.249 While arguably local hire initiatives are not affirmative action programs, they often achieve the same results, generating job opportunities for communities of color and women.250 Thus if a governmental entity's local hire program appears to contain provisions preferring or specifically targeting the hire or participation of local minorities or women, it may be susceptible to an equal protection challenge on the basis that such programs are race- and gender-conscious programs masquerading as racially-neutral programs.251 Summary Regarding Equal Protection Clause Challenges to Local Hire Programs. A local hire program that infringes upon a fundamental right or discriminates on the basis of a suspect classification would be subject to strict judicial scrutiny. Read the entire page →
From page 20... ... 20 While none of the regulations adopted by the Department of Transportation expressly prohibit the use and implementation of local hire programs, if such a program was deemed contrary to federal law or regulations, it may be susceptible to a legal challenge.262 Thus, even if a local hire preference program is consistent with state law, it may not be automatically applicable to federally funded projects. If it is contrary to federal law or regulations, it may be within the discretion of the dispensing federal agency to withdraw its financial support.263 B Read the entire page →
From page 21... ... 21 cient use of federal dollars, the FHWA has not demonstrated that local hiring preference styled in the manner of the [Cleveland hiring preference] are impermissible per se due to their conflict with federal law.277 And lastly, the Sixth Circuit rejected the agency's argument that 23 C.F.R. Read the entire page →

From page 19...

... 19 based affirmative action programs to strict judicial scrutiny.248 After Croson, local entities that had not empirically demonstrated past discrimination against MBEs were unable to implement such programs without running afoul of the Equal Protection Clause.249 While arguably local hire initiatives are not affirmative action programs, they often achieve the same results, generating job opportunities for communities of color and women.250 Thus if a governmental entity's local hire program appears to contain provisions preferring or specifically targeting the hire or participation of local minorities or women, it may be susceptible to an equal protection challenge on the basis that such programs are race- and gender-conscious programs masquerading as racially-neutral programs.251 Summary Regarding Equal Protection Clause Challenges to Local Hire Programs. A local hire program that infringes upon a fundamental right or discriminates on the basis of a suspect classification would be subject to strict judicial scrutiny.

Read the entire page →

From page 20...

... 20 While none of the regulations adopted by the Department of Transportation expressly prohibit the use and implementation of local hire programs, if such a program was deemed contrary to federal law or regulations, it may be susceptible to a legal challenge.262 Thus, even if a local hire preference program is consistent with state law, it may not be automatically applicable to federally funded projects. If it is contrary to federal law or regulations, it may be within the discretion of the dispensing federal agency to withdraw its financial support.263 B

Read the entire page →

From page 21...

... 21 cient use of federal dollars, the FHWA has not demonstrated that local hiring preference styled in the manner of the [Cleveland hiring preference] are impermissible per se due to their conflict with federal law.277 And lastly, the Sixth Circuit rejected the agency's argument that 23 C.F.R.

Read the entire page →

Key Terms

← Previous Chapter Skim

Next Chapter Skim →

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.