Enertech Electrical, Inc. v. Mahoning County Commissioners
Docket: No. 94-3601
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; June 7, 1996; Federal Appellate Court
Enertech Electrical, Inc. appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of Mahoning County regarding a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Enertech contended that the County's selection process for the electrical contractor for the Justice Center project deprived it of a constitutionally guaranteed property interest. The district court ruled that Enertech did not adequately allege such a deprivation. The bidding process began on April 26, 1993, with the County soliciting bids for various packages, including electrical work. A Project Labor Agreement (PLA) was established, requiring all contractors to ratify it and adhere to its terms. At a pre-bid meeting in May 1993, it was disclosed that discussions about the PLA were ongoing, and a local bargaining representative for electricians had not yet been appointed. Enertech submitted its bid on June 15, 1993, but later indicated its union did not sign the PLA and was negotiating its own agreement. When the County rebid the electrical package, it offered the contract to Enertech contingent upon signing the PLA and the collective bargaining agreement with IBEW Local 64, which Enertech refused, proposing instead to recognize a different union, Local 573. The County set a deadline for compliance, which Enertech did not meet, leading to the appeal. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling.
Enertech received a letter from the County reiterating its stance on a collective bargaining agreement, which Enertech refused to sign. Subsequently, Enertech filed a §1983 lawsuit in district court, claiming a violation of its constitutional property rights due to the denial of a contract, alleging abuse of discretion by County officials, and asserting violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Enertech sought declarations asserting its status as the lowest bidder and the illegality of the Project Labor Agreement (PLA), as well as injunctive relief against the County's enforcement of the PLA and reimbursement of costs and fees. The district court denied Enertech's request for a preliminary injunction, citing the availability of legal remedies, and awarded the contract to the next lowest bidder. Enertech later amended its complaint to include a claim for lost profits due to this award. The district court permitted Local 64 to intervene as a defendant and ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of the County and Local 64, finding no genuine issues of material fact. Enertech appealed the decision, which was subject to de novo review, where the court emphasized that the evidence must favor the non-moving party and that summary judgment is appropriate when no material factual disputes exist. Enertech's appeal primarily focused on its §1983 claim, asserting deprivations of due process rights, but failed to substantiate its arguments regarding substantive due process violations or the NLRA, leading the court to consider these points abandoned. Furthermore, to establish a §1983 claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant acted under state law to infringe upon a federally protected right, which can be shown either through actual deprivation of a awarded contract or through evidence of limited discretion by the County in awarding the contract. Enertech contended that the County improperly conditioned the contract award on ratification of the PLA, thus abusing its discretion.
Section 307.90 of the Ohio Revised Code mandates that publicly bid contracts be awarded to the "lowest and best bidder." The Ohio Supreme Court clarifies that this allows counties discretion to determine the best bidder beyond just the lowest price. Courts cannot interfere with this discretion unless there is an abuse or fraudulent behavior, defined as an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable decision. The county did not abuse its discretion by requiring bidders to ratify the Project Labor Agreement (PLA), which aimed to ensure labor harmony and clarify project responsibilities. The inclusion of the PLA did not compromise the competitive bidding process, nor did it lead to favoritism or fraud. Enertech, by failing to ratify the PLA, was not considered the lowest and best bidder, allowing the County to award the contract to the next lowest bidder. Enertech did not establish a constitutionally protected property interest in the contract, supporting the summary judgment in favor of the defendants regarding procedural due process. Furthermore, Enertech's claims that the County abused its discretion by conditioning the contract on adherence to Local 64's collective bargaining agreement were not addressed as they were abandoned in appellate briefs. Enertech also argued that project labor agreements violate Ohio’s competitive bidding statutes, asserting this constituted an abuse of discretion by the County.
Enertech claims that an abuse of discretion has deprived it of its property rights under the contract, forming a basis for its §1983 claim. It also seeks to certify the question of whether project labor agreements (PLAs) violate Ohio competitive bidding law to the Ohio Supreme Court. Defendants argue that Enertech waived this argument by not presenting it to the district court. They reference the legal principle that issues not raised at the district level are typically considered waived. Though urged by Enertech and amici curiae to consider the legality of PLAs in Ohio, the court declines, noting that it only resolves unraised issues when the outcome is beyond doubt or injustice would ensue. Since the Ohio Supreme Court has not addressed this issue, and prior rulings do not categorically prohibit PLAs, the court finds no reason to intervene. It concludes that the district court's summary judgment against Enertech was appropriate and affirms the decision, denying Enertech's motion for certification.
