པས ་བ་ 16. Nothing in the Small Business Act, SBA regulations, or SBA SOPS limits the maximum number of contracts which defendant can negotiate under $8(a). Kor is there any limit to the number of businesses which defendants can adait to the St (a) program. 17. On June 22, 1979, plaintiff Rosenberg, acting on behalf of plaintiff S.S.R., Inc., submitted an application for admission to the 58(a) program. Plaintiff Rosenberç submitted all docu:mentation required by defendants' regulations and SOPs. The application contained information concerning S.S.R., Inc.'s corporate organization, history, and financial experience; the background of the firm's Lockholder and officers; the services provided by the firm; and the firm's expectations for growth if admitted to the program. 18. The application also provided detailed information to support a finding by defendants that plaintiff Rosenberg was both socially and economically disadvantaged as those terms are defined in the Small Business Act and SBA regulations. This information included at least one specific instance of individual sex discrimination against plaintiff Rosenberg, along with a detailed account of plaintiff S.S.R. Inc.'s inability to borrow money from normal commercial sources and plaintiff Rosenberg's difficulties in competing in the sale-dominated marketplace. 19. On July 23, 1980, plaintiff Rosenberg received a lette: dated July 21 from defendants denying her application to the St(a)) program. In spite of a reference in the letter to "apparent sexual discrimination," defendants concluded that plaintiff Rosenberg did not suffer social disadvantage because "sexua! discrimination is not equated to cultural bias." The letter also states that the Small Business Act "does not recognize sexual discrimination as one of the elements which may lead to a determination of social disadvantage." See httachment I. 20. Upon being informed by plaintiffs' counsel that plaintiffs intended to file this action on August.1, 1980, defendants sent plaintiff Rosenberg a letter dated July 31, 1980, which purported to rescind the decision rejecting her application to the 58(a) program, so that the decision could be reviewed. The letter stated that defendant would notify plaintiff Rosenberg of the results of the review within 30 days. nor her counsel requested this review. Neither plaintiff Rosenberg 21. Hore than 30 days have passed since July 31, 1980, and, despite repeated inquiries by her counsel, defendants have failed to notify plaintiff Rosenberg of the results of the purported review. Plaintiff Rosenberg therefore continues to be unable to participate in the $8 (a) program. 22. Defendants' rejection of plaintiff Rosenberg's application for admission to the sa(a) program has caused and continues to cause plaintiffs Rosenberg and S.S.R., Inc. substantial economic has, since they are unable to receive government contracts which they would have received if defendants had granted plaintiff Rosenberg's application. 23. On April 10, 1979, plaintiff Shaffer, acting on behalf of plaintiff Paradigm, Inc., submitted an application for admission to the 58(a) program. Plaintiff Shaffer submitted all documentation required by defendants' regulations and SOPS. The application contained information concerning Paradign's corporate organization, history, and financial experience; the background of the firm's stockholder and officers; the services provided by the firm; and the firm's expectations for growth if admitted to the program. 24. The application also provided detailed information to support a finding by defendants that plaintiff Shaffer was both socially and economically disadvantaged as those terms are defined in the Small Business Act and SBA regulations. This information included numerous instances of individual sex discrimination and sexual harassment against plaintiff Shaffer, along with a detailed account of plaintiff Paradign's inability to borrow money from normal commercial sources and plaintiff Shaffer's difficulties in competing in the male-dominated marketplace. 25. On December 19, 1979, defendants notified plaintiff Shaffer that her application for admission to the 58(a) program had been denied. On January 23, 1980, plaintiff Shaffer submitted a timely request for reconsideration of her application. 26. By letter dated May 30, 1980, defendants notified plaintiff Shaffer that her request for reconsideration had been denied. Although defendants stated that plaintiff Shaffer "pay indeed have been subjected to sexual discrimination," defendants concluded that "sexual discrimination is not.....one of the elements which may lead to a determination of social disadvantage, and neither does the Small Business Administration equate sexual discrimination to cultural bias." See Attachment I:I. 27. Upon being informet by plaintiffs' counsel that plaintiffs intended to file this action on August 1, 1929, defendants sent plaintiff Shaffer a letter dated July 31, 1980, which puporzo to rescind the decision rejecting her application to the 58(a) program, so that the decision could be reviewed. The letter stated: that defendant would notify plaintiff Shaffer of the results of the review within 30 days. Neither plaintiff Shaffer nor her counsel requested this review. See Attachment IV. 28. More than 30 days have passed since July 31, 1980, and, ; despite repeated inquiries by her counsel, defendants have failed to notify plaintiff Shaffer of the results of the purported review. Plaintiff Shaffer therefore continues to be unable participate in the $8(a) program. 29. Defendant's' rejection of plaintiff Shaffer's application for admission to the $8(a) program has caused and will continue : to cause plaintiffs Shaffer and Paradigm, Inc. substantial economic harm, since they are unable to receive government contracts which they would have received if defendants had granted plaintiff Shaffer's application. 30. In May, 1979, plaintiff Fount, acting on behalf of plaintiff Building Services Unlimited, Inc., submitted an application for admission to the 58(a) program. Plaintiff Mount submitted all documentation required by defendants' regulations and SOPS. The application contained information concerning Building Services Unlimited, Inc.'s corporate organization, history and financial experience; the background of the firm's stockholder and officers; the services provided by the firm; and the firm's expectations for growth if admitted to the program. 31. The application also provided detailed information to support a finding by defendants that plaintiff Hount was both socially and economically disadvantaged as those terms are defined in the Small Business Act and SBA regulations. This information included specific instances of individual sex discrimination against plaintiff Mount, along with a detailed account of Building Services Unlimited, Inc.'s inability to borrow money from normal commercial sources and plaintiff Mount's difficulties in competing in the male-dominated marketplace. 32. By letter dated February 21, 1989, defendants rejected plaintiff Mount's application to the 58(a) program. Although defendants admitted that plaintiff Hount nade "a case for apparent sexual discrimination," defendants stated that the Small Business Act "does not recognize sexual discrimination elements leading to social disadvantage and neither does the SBA equate sexual discrimination to cultural bias." See Attachment v. as one of the 33. Plaintiff Mount submitted a timely request for reconsideration, which defendants denied by letter dated July 21, 1980. In that letter, defendants stated that plaintiff's request was being denied "for the same reasons stated in [the] letter to you, dated February 21, 1980." See Attachment VI. 34. Defendants' rejection of plaintiff Hount's application for admission to 58(a) program has caused and will continue to cause plaintiffs Hount and Building Services Unlimited, Inc. substantial economic harm, since they are unable to receive Government contracts which they would have received if defendants had granted plaintiff Kount's application. 35. Defendants' position that sexual discrimination cannot lead to a determination” of social disadvantage because sexual discrimination cannot be equated to cultural bias is inconsistent with positions defendants have taken before Congress and the media, and in at least one administrative decision. 36. Upon information and belief, only approximately five percent of the businesses currently participating in the 58(a) program are owned or controlled by women. 37. COUNT I Plaintiffs repeat the allegations of paragraph 3 through 36 of the Complaint as paragraph 37. 38. In rejecting plaintiffs' applications for admission to the 58(a) program, defendants violated $8(a) of the Small Business, Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. $637(a), and S3A regulations, 13 C.F.R. 5124.1-1, by concluding unlawfully that sex discrimination cannot give rise to "cultural bias" as that term is used in the Act and regulations. : |
