In the particulars of the case, the petitioner in the case, Adarand Constructors, Inc. challenged the policy of the Federal government of awarding financial considerations to general contractors that hire subcontractors that are majority owned by minority groups (Adarand Constructors Inc., vs. Federico Pena, (515 U.S. 200 (1995).
In the case, the Transportation Department’s Central Federal Lands Highway Division gave the primary contract for a highway building project to Mountain Gravel and Construction Company (Adarand, 1995).
Mountain then awarded the guardrail component of the project to Gonzales Construction Company even if petitioner Adarand was a specialist in the component and had submitted the lowest bid for the project (Adarand, 1995).
The contract acquired by Mountain stated that the company would be eligible for extra compensation if it chose a company classified as a disadvantaged group (Adarand, 1995). In the 1987 Surface and Transportation and Uniform Relocation Act, the act provides that 10 percent of the funds will be preferred for the socially disadvantaged groups (Adarand, 1995).
The clause in dispute is that the definition of the “small disadvantaged class (Adarand, 1995).
In the records of the Small Business Administration, Gonzales did not meet the requirements for the class (Adarand, 1995).
In the decision of the Court, in Richmond vs. J.A. Croson, Co. (586 U.S. 469 (1989), the court ruled that one-third of the work to be given out to contractors will be given out to businesses whose owners are in the minority (Adarand, 1995).
The Research paper on Company Case Study of Technics SL Ltd
BackgroundThe company that I have chosen to look at is Technics SL Ltd, a subsidiary company of Technics Ltd, which is now owned by Panasonic. Technics main purpose of business is home entertainment systems but Technics SL Ltd concentrate their efforts toward turntable production. They currently produce 2 products, the SL1200MK2, SL1210MK2. (Appendix 1)•Technics announced the world's first direct ...
In their decision, the Court ruled that under the ambit of the equal protection, the review must undergo strict scrutiny, and the benefits is not anchored on the race of those who challenge the policy nor then ones who stand to benefit from such (Adarand, 1995).
In the opinion of the Court, it rules that any and all classifications based on race must face strict evaluation, and that such policy is only conforming to the ambit of the Constitution that have a legally persuasive interest for the government (Adarand, 1995).
