White Residents Sue City Over Racially Discriminatory Human Rights Policy

White residents denied an appointment to a city human rights commission are suing Asheville, North Carolina, for racial discrimination.
White Residents Sue City Over Racially Discriminatory Human Rights Policy
A picturesque Asheville, N.C., neighborhood in autumn. (Rod Gimenez/Dreamstime/TNS)
Matthew Vadum
10/27/2023
Updated:
10/29/2023
0:00

Residents of Asheville, North Carolina, are suing the city in federal court over allegedly unconstitutional racial discrimination at the local human rights board.

The residents argue that the city’s discriminatory treatment runs afoul of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That provision forbids governments from discriminating against people on the basis of their membership in a racial group.

Asheville has a history of alleged racial discrimination.

In January 2022, the city settled a federal civil rights lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch over a racially discriminatory city-funded scholarship program. At the same time, the city agreed to erase racially discriminatory eligibility provisions from a related program that hands out grants to educators.

Racial criteria are used in the selection process to fill positions on the Human Relations Commission of Asheville (HRCA), which was created in 2018.

The HRCA initially enforced quotas, requiring the city council to fill the 15-member board with certain numbers of African Americans, Latinos, LGBT people, “professionals with influence,” youth members, a representative from each of the city’s geographical areas, public housing residents, and people with disabilities.

“Under the HRCA’s membership criteria, the City Council will not endeavor to appoint white residents unless they also satisfy a separate category, such as being a member of the LGBTQ+ community, a youth member, disabled, living in public housing, or recognized as a community leader,“ the legal complaint states. ”On the other hand, the City Council will automatically prefer minority applicants without requiring those applicants to satisfy a separate category.

In 2022, as it struggled to fill vacancies and reach a quorum, the city revamped the HRCA, reducing the number of seats to nine. The city also removed the numeric race quotas from the HRCA’s membership requirements but replaced them with equally discriminatory race-based membership preferences.

What remains is a de facto race quota under which the city prefers people from certain races, according to Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a public interest law firm that challenges government abuses and that represents the plaintiffs in the legal action.

The legal complaint in the case, Miall v. Asheville, was filed recently in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

“The opportunity to serve your local community should not depend on your race,” Andrew Quinio, a PLF attorney, said.

Andrew Quinio, attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation (photo courtesy of Pacific Legal Foundation)
Andrew Quinio, attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation (photo courtesy of Pacific Legal Foundation)

“Asheville’s candidates for public service should be treated as individuals, instead of mere members of arbitrary racial groups. Asheville needs to stop making assumptions about people’s experiences and qualifications based on arbitrary and offensive racial classifications.”

One HRCA candidate, plaintiff John Miall, is a white man and lifelong resident of Asheville. He spent almost 30 years working for the city, including as its director of risk management. He co-founded the Asheville Project, a community-based health care program for the city’s workforce in 1997 that became a national model for improving patient care at lower costs, evolving into what’s known today as value-based insurance design.

He said he thought his decades of municipal experience and continued service to his community would be a natural fit for the HRCA. But when he applied for one of the vacant seats, Asheville turned down his application because of his race and readvertised the open positions, according to PLF.

But there is a new wrinkle in the lawsuit, Mr. Quinio told The Epoch Times in an Oct. 25 interview. After the lawsuit was brought, the city appointed Mr. Miall to the HRCA.

“It may be an attempt by them to get rid of this lawsuit,” the lawyer said.

But there are still four other plaintiffs in the lawsuit who have been harmed by the city’s discriminatory policy, he said, all of whom are white.

“This lawsuit moves forward until the city changes its ordinance and agrees not to use race as a criterion in making appointments to this commission,” he said.

“If you’re running a race and you get tripped along the way, even if you’ve crossed the finish line, well, someone’s got to answer for tripping, for you not being to compete fairly.”

The other plaintiffs whom the city failed to appoint to the HRCA are Robyn Hite, David Shaw, Willa Grant, and Danie Johnson.

Ms. Hite serves on the North Buncombe Elementary Parent Teacher Organization board and is a past president of the North Windy Ridge Parent Teacher Organization.

Mr. Shaw is a sales manager for a construction company. He earned an MBA from Western Carolina University and is working toward a master’s degree in social work. He also interns in the women’s behavioral health unit at a local hospital, where he provides group therapy and support to patients.

Ms. Grant taught at Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community College and Blue Ridge Community College. She currently serves the Western North Carolina Rescue Mission, mentoring homeless citizens and helping them obtain housing.

Mr. Johnson is an architect who started his own firm in Asheville in 1974. He designs commercial and residential buildings throughout the city and across North Carolina.

Attorneys have asked the court to certify the lawsuit as a class action.

Asheville spokesperson Kim Miller told The Epoch Times the city will continue to contest the lawsuit.

“The City vehemently denies any allegation of discrimination,“ Ms. Miller said by email. ”It is our intention to defend the City’s interests in the suit vigorously. Beyond this, it is our policy not to comment on active litigation.”