Darensburg v. Metro. Transp. Comm'n, 09–15878.

• Decision Date: 16 February 2011
• Docket Number: No. 09–15878.,09–15878.
• Citation: 636 F.3d 511
• Parties: Sylvia DARENSBURG; Vivian Hain, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated; Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 192; Communities for a Better Environment, Plaintiffs–Appellants,andVirginia Martinez, Plaintiff,v.METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

636 F.3d 511

11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2135

2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2558

Sylvia DARENSBURG; Vivian Hain, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated; Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 192; Communities for a Better Environment, Plaintiffs–Appellants,andVirginia Martinez, Plaintiff,

v.METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 09–15878.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Jan. 14, 2011.Filed Feb. 16, 2011.

Linda Lye(argued), Peter D. Nussbaum, P. Casey Pitts, and Daniel Purtell of Altschuler Berzon LLP, San Francisco, CA; Bill Lann Lee, Margaret Hasselman, Angelica Kristen Jongco, and Sacha C. Steinberger of Lewis Feinberg Lee Renaker & Jackson, PC, Oakland, CA; Matthew Brigham, Heather Dunn Navarro, Brandon Kimura, Neha M. Marathe, and Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria, Cooley LLP; Richard A. Marcantonio, Jr. and Guillermo Mayer of Public Advocates, Inc., San Francisco, CA; and Adrienne Bloch of Communities for a Better Environment, Oakland, CA, for appellants.Kimon Manolius (argued), Julia H. Veit, Warren Richmond Webster, Megan O. Thompson, and Emily M. Charley of Hanson Bridgett LLP, San Francisco, CA; Francis F. Chin, Cynthia E. Segal of Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, CA, for appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Elizabeth D. Laporte, Magistrate Judge, Presiding.D.C.No. 3:05–cv–01597–EDL.Before: J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, JOHN T. NOONAN, and BARRY G. SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.Opinion by Judge SILVERMAN; Concurrence by Judge NOONAN.

OPINION

SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs-appellants, a class of members of racial minority groups who ride buses operated by the Alameda–Contra Costa Transit District(“AC Transit”), a labor union, and a community-based organization appeal from the district court's judgment in favor of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.Claiming state and federal civil rights violations, Plaintiffs allege that MTC's disproportionate emphasis on rail expansion projects over bus expansion projects in its Regional Transit Expansion Plan, also known as the RTEP, illegally discriminates against minorities, who constitute 66.3% of San Francisco Bay Area bus riders—even though 51.6% of rail riders are also members of racial minority groups.

Plaintiffs claim that the RTEP has a disparate impact on minorities, and that this disparate impact, along with evidence of (1) the history of Bay Area rail service as predominantly benefitting white riders; (2) MTC's interactions with its advisory committees representing minority groups; and (3) MTC's inconsistent application of selection criteria to bus and rail projects, demonstrates that MTC's decision to favor rail over bus expansion in the RTEP results from intentional discrimination.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of MTC on Plaintiffs' intentional discrimination claims, but allowed the disparate impact claims to continue to trial.After trial, the district court held that Plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination only as to MTC's conduct in disproportionately selecting and allocating funding to rail projects, as opposed to bus projects, in the RTEP.However, shifting the burden to MTC, the district court held that MTC had shown “substantial legitimate justification” for its challenged conduct.Shifting the burden back to Plaintiffs to prove the existence of a less discriminatory, equally effective alternative, the district court held that they had failed to do so.

We agree that Plaintiffs' disparate impact claim fails, but for a different reason.The statistical measure upon which Plaintiffs relied to establish a prima facie case is unsound, and their claim rests upon a logical fallacy.Although Plaintiffs' statistical evidence shows that minorities make up a greater percentage of the regional population of bus riders than rail riders, it does not necessarily follow that an expansion plan that emphasizes rail projects over bus projects will harm minorities.Plaintiffs' theory forecloses altogether the possibility that MTC could devise any rail-centered expansion that could benefit minority transit riders, while the evidence shows that Bay Area minorities already benefit substantially from rail service.Without a more precise statistical measure of how the particular projects included in the RTEP will serve the Bay Area's transit ridership, no court could possibly determine whether MTC's long-term expansion plan will help or harm the region's minority transit riders.

Because Plaintiffs do not establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, MTC is not required to justify its challenged conduct, and we do not address the district court's analysis on that point.

Plaintiffs' failure to provide an appropriate measure of disparate impact also fatally undermines their claim of intentional discrimination.Not only does Plaintiffs' statistical evidence fail to prove discrimination, but their circumstantial evidence does not support any inference that MTC's adoption of the Regional Transit Expansion Plan was motivated by racial bias.

We affirm the judgment of the district court.

Factual Background

The facts of this case are set forth in exquisite detail by the district court in its decision, seeDarensburg v. Metro. Transp. Comm'n,611 F.Supp.2d 994(N.D.Cal.2009); therefore, we repeat only those facts pertinent to the issues we address in detail.

I.Parties

MTC is the transportation planning, coordinating and financing agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.MTC is the designated recipient of numerous federal and state funding sources, and is responsible for allocating those funding sources that are within its control to various transit operators and projects.MTC sets policy and makes funding decisions through its nineteen-member Board of Commissioners.

There are twenty-six independent transit operators within MTC's purview.The operators are independent from MTC and make their own decisions about budgeting and policy, including what services to provide.The operators are funded in part with state and federal money allocated through MTC; however, operators also receive a substantial part of their funding from state and local revenue sources, such as local sales taxes, that are outside of MTC's control.

Plaintiffs rely on AC Transit bus service for transportation to and from work, school, shopping, and family and social engagements, among other destinations.Plaintiffs allege they have been harmed by cuts in AC Transit's bus service, fare hikes, failure to make improvements that would make buses more accessible and service more reliable, and failure to increase the reach and frequency of bus service.As a result, Plaintiffs claim to have lost out on job opportunities; been forced to cut expenses for other necessities to accommodate fare hikes; used more expensive means of transportation, including cars and taxis, to work around service shortages; and been subject to long waits for buses in unsafe areas.

Plaintiffs assert that MTC's decisions not to select more and allocate greater funding for bus expansion projects in its Regional Transit Expansion Plan has caused, at least in part, the fare hikes, service shortages, and lack of improvement on AC Transit bus service of which Plaintiffs complain.

II.Transit Operators and Regional Ridership Demographics

Seven operators account for over ninety-five percent of the Bay Area's transit trips.The annual ridership of these seven operators for fiscal-year 2005–06 was approximately as follows: (1) San Francisco Municipal Railway (“MUNI”)(220.880 million riders); (2) Bay Area Rapid Transit (“BART”)(101.578 million riders); (3) AC Transit (65.383 million riders); (4) Santa Clara Valey Transit Authority (“VTA”)(40.187 million riders); (5)San Mateo County Transit District(“SamTrans”)(40.187 million riders); (6)Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board(“CalTrain”)(10.149 million riders); and (7)Golden Gate Highway and Transportation District(“GGT”)(9.403 million riders).The percentage of minority ridership on these operators is as follows: (1) AC Transit (78%); (2) VTA (70%); (3) SamTrans (70%); (4) MUNI (58%); (5) BART (53%); (6) Caltrain (50%); (7) GGT (38%).Minorities account for approximately 61 percent of the Bay Area's total transit ridership, 66.3 percent of bus ridership, and 51.6 percent of rail ridership.

These operators provide different and interconnecting modes of service.AC Transit and SamTrans provide only bus service.BART and Caltrain provide only rail service.MUNI and VTA provide a mix of bus and rail services.GGT provides a mix of bus and ferry services.AC Transit connects with nine other bus systems, twenty-one BART stations, six Amtrak stations, and three ferry terminals.BART operates five routes to forty-three stations in four counties, including areas served by AC Transit.Caltrain operates train service in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, and is run by a consortium of three other operators (MUNI, SamTrans, and VTA).

III.The Development of the Regional Transit Expansion Plan

MTC is responsible for updating roughly every four years the Regional Transportation Plan, a comprehensive blueprint for the development of mass transit, highway, airport, seaport, railroad, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.A key portion of the Regional Transportation Plan is the Regional Transit Expansion Plan, a long-range plan to address regional mass transit needs.

Plaintiffs challenge MTC's selection of projects for inclusion into the Regional Transit Expansion Plan, arguing that MTC favors rail expansion projects over bus expansion projects, and that this preference discriminates against bus riders who are disproportionately minority compared to rail riders.The RTEP at issue here was first adopted in 2001, and then amended and updated in 2006.Although the...