Schmidt v. Oakland Unified School District
SCHMIDT Et Al., Dba SCHMIDT & POLLARD v. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Et Al.
Opinion
Per Curiam.
California Educ. Code Ann. § 39640 (West Supp. 1982) requires school districts to award any contracts for work involving more than $12,000 to the “lowest responsible bidder.” For projects over $100,000, the Oakland School District requires that to be considered responsible, general contractors must use minority-owned businesses for at least 25 percent of the dollar amount of the total bid. Petitioners submitted the low bid for an advertised project but were disqualified under the School District plan as not being responsible. They brought this action claiming damages and asserting that the affirmative-action plan violated not only the Federal Constitution but also state law. The Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment of the District Court upholding the plan on constitutional grounds. 662 F. 2d 550 (1981). Although the Court of Appeals acknowledged that under one of its prior decisions, the plan at issue might be invalid under state law, it declined to decide the state-law question since it was a sen *595 sitive matter and petitioners could present it to the state courts.
If the affirmative-action plan is invalid under state law, the Court of Appeals need not have reached the federal constitutional issue. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals declined to resolve the pendent state-law claim. Under Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528, 546 (1974), and Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U. S. 715 (1966), this was an abuse of discretion in the circumstances of this case.
We accordingly grant the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 8 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that it was an abuse of discretion under Gibbs not to assert pendent jurisdiction over dispositive state-law claims when doing so would have avoided reaching the issue of the constitutionality of an affirmative-action plan)
-
(reaching constitutional issue without resolving state law claim was, under the circumstances, an abuse of discretion)
-
(upholding the constitutionality of a plan requiring a general contractor bidding on a school construction project to use minority owned businesses for at least 25% of the dollar amount of the total bid)
-
(25% goal acceptable in light of city's 34.5% non-white population; decision vacated for failure to reach merits of state statutory issue prior to deciding constitutional claim)
-
(25% MBE set-aside on school construction projects)
Cited by 34 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- J.A. Croson Company v. City of Richmond, Associated General Contractors of America, Amicus Curiae
- Southwest Washington Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Ass'n v. Pierce County
- South Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County
- J.A. Croson Co. v. City of Richmond
- Lashawn A. v. Marion S. Barry, Jr., as Mayor of the District of Columbia
- Wal-Juice Bar, Inc. v. Elliott
Most recent
- Vlaming v. West Point School Board
- Ricardo Torres v. Precision Indus., Inc.
- New Jersey Payphone Association, Inc, a Not for Profit Corporation Organized Under the Laws of New Jersey v. Town of West New York
- Henn v. City of Highland Heights
- Lashawn A. v. Marion S. Barry, Jr.
- Lashawn A. v. Marion S. Barry, Jr., as Mayor of the District of Columbia
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.