682 F.3d 1293
11th Cir.2012Background
- Airport advertising bid at Hartsfield-Jackson; City issued 2002 RFP requiring >=60% revenue to City; incumbent Clear Channel and Fouch previously held a month-to-month contract awarding 50% to City; Corey finished second and protested bid; after evidentiary hearing Corey filed §1983 conspiracy suit alleging equal protection violation; jury awarded damages but district court later denied JMOL and post-trial motions were appealed.
- Court held underlying EP claim required an identifiable group; Corey failed to define a constitutionally cognizable group beyond mere bid-losers; government bid processes involve discretionary decisions not readily subject to EP challenges.
- Court treated “insiders” vs “outsiders” as too vague to constitute an identifiable group; class-of-one theory is unsuitable for discretionary government actions and contractor decisions; the bid process allows broad discretion with factors difficult to articulate.
- Court concluded there was no viable equal protection claim because no identifiable group, thus no predicate for a conspiracy claim; even if there were discrimination, it would be difficult to prove anti-group animus in discretionary bidding.
- Court vacated district court’s denial of JMOL and remanded with instructions to render JMOL for defendants; conspiracy claims depend on an underlying EP violation, which was not shown.
- Outcome: Judgment as a matter of law entered for defendants on plaintiff’s §1983 conspiracy claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a cognizable identifiable group for EP claim in bid process? | Corey argues outsiders/insiders group. | No identifiable group; bid-losers not enough. | No identifiable group; EP claim fails. |
| Can a conspiracy claim succeed without an underlying EP violation? | Conspiracy to deprive EP rights. | No underlying EP violation. | Conspiracy claim fails without EP violation. |
| Does a class-of-one theory apply to discretionary government bidding? | Yes, as outsider group. | No, not applicable. | Class-of-one theory not applicable. |
| Are insider/outsider distinctions sufficient to identify a group? | Insiders/outsiders defined by connections. | Not objectively defined. | Insider/outsider distinctions inadequate. |
| Did the district court err in denying JMOL? | Jury verdict supported by record. | JMOL warranted given no EP group. | JMOL for defendants warranted; vacate and remand with JMOL. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agric., 128 S. Ct. 2146 (Sup. Ct. 2008) (EP not readily applicable to discretionary government actions involving contractors)
- Parks v. City of Warner Robins, 43 F.3d 609 (11th Cir. 1995) (discriminatory intent required; group must be identifiable)
- Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 113 S. Ct. 753 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (animus based on class required for EP/§1985 claims)
- Engquist, 128 S. Ct. 2146 (Sup. Ct. 2008) (see Engquist—discretionary decisions by government contractors)
- Douglas Asphalt Co. v. Qore, Inc., 541 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2008) (broad discretion in government contractor decisions)
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (class-of-one doctrine; identifiable class must be meaningful)