Higgins Electric, Inc. v. O'Fallon Fire Protection District
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3020
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- O’Fallon Fire Protection District solicited bids for a new firehouse, stating it would be guided by the AIA guide but expressly reserving the right to reject any or all bids and to select a bidder other than the lowest.
- Higgins Electric submitted what it claims was the lowest responsible bid; Higgins had a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 57 (the union).
- District allegedly told Higgins it would not be awarded the work because Higgins’s employees were represented by a union not affiliated with the AFL-CIO and because a project labor agreement (PLA) barred Higgins; the District ultimately awarded the electrical contract to a different contractor employing members of the Laborers’ union.
- Higgins and the union sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the Equal Protection, Due Process, and First Amendment freedom-of-association clauses; they also pleaded Missouri constitutional and statutory claims.
- The district court dismissed the federal claims for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing (Higgins) | Higgins suffered a concrete injury by being denied the contract and can obtain redress | District argued Higgins and the union lack standing | Higgins has standing; union lacks associational standing for damages because individualized proof is required |
| Equal Protection (class-of-one) | District treated Higgins differently without rational basis by favoring another contractor and giving false reasons | District reserved broad discretionary bidding rights and treated bidders under uniformly applicable rules | Claim failed: Higgins did not allege a similarly situated comparator and class-of-one theory is inappropriate where officials exercise broad discretionary bidding authority |
| Due Process (property interest) | Higgins argued a protected property interest in the contract award | District pointed to Missouri law and its solicitation reserving right to reject or select non-lowest bidder | Claim failed: under Missouri law and the solicitation’s express reservations, unsuccessful bidders have no property right in award |
| First Amendment freedom of association | Higgins claimed the District interfered with its associational rights by favoring contractors affiliated with different unions | District argued preference for union labor does not substantially interfere with associational rights and no plausible interference was pleaded | Claim failed: Higgins did not plausibly allege interference with its ability to associate or that the government’s actions directly restrained association |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete injury, causation, redressability)
- Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26 (redressability and standing limits)
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (class-of-one equal protection theory)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (limits of class-of-one claims where officials exercise discretionary authority)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (associational standing requirements)
- Gallagher v. City of Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013 (nonprotected status of contractors for suspect-class analysis)