Young v. Federal Aviation Administration
662 F. App'x 186
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Andre L. Young (owner of Salutations, Inc.) owned 20% of a joint venture, Paradies–Pittsburgh, L.L.C., operating retail stores at Pittsburgh International Airport.
- The Allegheny County Airport Authority operates the airport and receives federal DOT grants, triggering ACDBE (Airport Concessions Disadvantaged Business Enterprise) obligations under 49 U.S.C. § 47107(e) and implementing regulations in 49 C.F.R. Part 23.
- Young complained to the FAA (June 2015) that the Airport Authority failed to properly monitor Paradies–Pittsburgh under 49 C.F.R. § 23.29 and discriminated against him on a bidding opportunity.
- FAA found no violation because the Airport Authority never counted Salutations or the joint venture toward its ACDBE/DBE goals; Salutations was certified as an ACDBE only in 2013 but Paradies–Pittsburgh was never qualified or counted.
- Young petitioned for review in the court of appeals; the court exercised jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 46110 and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 23.29 required Airport Authority to monitor Salutations/Paradies joint venture | Young: § 23.29 applies to all minority/ACDBE partners at federally funded airports; monitoring was required | FAA/Airport: § 23.29 applies only to businesses the grant recipient counts toward ACDBE goals; joint venture not counted | Held: FAA not arbitrary — monitoring duty applies only to ACDBEs counted toward goals; no monitoring violation |
| Whether Airport Authority was required to impose ACDBE obligations after Salutations' 2013 certification | Young: certification triggered obligations regardless of counting | FAA: obligations attach only when recipient counts ACDBE participation toward goals | Held: Court agrees with FAA's interpretation; no plain error in agency interpretation |
| Whether the regulatory scheme allows counting businesses that do not meaningfully participate | Young: FAA's interpretation allows abuse (counting nonparticipating firms) | FAA: regs require counting only commercially useful ACDBE participation (§ 23.55) and allow penalties for bad faith (§ 23.57) | Held: FAA's reading acceptable; safeguards exist to prevent sham counting |
| Whether Young presented a prima facie racial discrimination claim | Young: Airport Authority discriminated by denying bidding/review opportunity | Airport Authority/FAA: Young offered only conclusory allegations without supporting facts | Held: Dismissal affirmed; conclusory allegations insufficient under Iqbal standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Flytenow, Inc. v. FAA, 808 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (Auer deference and agency interpretation review)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (Sup. Ct.) (deference to agency interpretations of its own ambiguous regulations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct.) (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive pleading standard)
- Corbett v. Transp. Sec. Admin., 767 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir.) (60-day filing deadline for petitions under § 46110 is not jurisdictional)