$100M Bid Rigging Lawsuit Against Dr. Michelle Taylor, James Gloster, & Shelby County Government Could Spark A Federal Criminal Probe
Legal Affairs Staff on November 9, 2024
SHELBY COUNTY, TN——- In his breakthrough $100M lawsuit, filed Friday, November 8, 2024 by Plaintiff Pastor Gerald Kiner pulls back the curtain on Shelby County’s government actors who he says “wear the costume of concern,” but the script they follow tells a different story—one where “the rights of minority contractors are sidelined and disregarded” – revealing that their claimed allegiance to minority constitutional rights is little more than an act, concealing “a system that perpetuates exclusion, bid rigging, and favoritism” while revealing that they have acted not as stewards of justice, but as “gatekeepers” who deny the rights of minority contractors.
“Dr. Michelle Taylor acts as a ‘good tooth fairy’ for those within her circle, granting millions in contracts even to organizations with unresolved issues in the Black community such as the University of Memphis. As such, emboldened by a lack of accountability and oversight, Dr. Taylor operates with impunity, fully aware that most Shelby County Commissioners, not named Thornton or Sugarmon, will blindly endorse and rubber-stamp her recommendations without question regardless of the negative impact of her decisions,” alleges Pastor Gerald Kiner in his $100M federal lawsuit against Shelby County Government officials.
In what may become a landmark legal battle in Shelby County, Pastor Kiner’s $100 million lawsuit accuses high-ranking Shelby County officials, of engaging in a pattern of corruption that mirrors the most egregious betrayals of public trust. The suit centers on accusations of bid rigging and a breach of the Sherman Act’s antitrust prohibitions.
The Heart of the Allegations
Kiner’s lawsuit outlines a system of preferential treatment that allegedly reaches the upper echelons of the Shelby County Health Department. It describes how contracts were purportedly secured through manipulations that ensured certain entities were favored over others, irrespective of procedural fairness or community benefit. Specifically, the complaint details how the University of Memphis was allegedly provided with insider information that allowed it to tailor its bid in a way that other, potentially more deserving, minority-led organizations could not.
Evidence of Systemic Manipulation
During a Shelby County Commissioner committee hearing on October 23, 2024, detailed in Exhibit B of the complaint, Dr. Taylor’s comments are cited as proof of premeditated arrangements with the University of Memphis to supply ten “health navigators” under the contract—details typically undisclosed until after a fair bidding process. This revelation is poised to stoke concerns about the integrity of public procurement processes in Shelby County.
Kiner’s lawsuit also contends “The University of Memphis was awarded the Single Source contract despite Commissioner Henri Brooks” acknowledgment, as documented during the October 23, 2024, Committee meeting, that the University has historically evaded compliance with Title VI, Brooks stating that ’the University of Memphis… really kind of gets away with not doing that, collecting data, complying with Title VI. And they have tons and tons of federal dollars.’
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin in any program or activity that receives federal financial assistance. Awarding a Single Source contract to a vendor with a documented history of significant disparities not only undermines the principles of fair competition but also perpetuates systemic inequalities. It denies qualified minority firms an equitable opportunity to participate in the bidding process and constitutes a violation of the constitutional and civil rights of the plaintiff, as well as numerous other eligible minority organizations. Yet Kiner asserts that Commissioner Brooks and the other Commissioners rubber-stamped the vote in favor of the University of Memphis anyway to the strong opposition of citizens who spoke at the Commissioner meeting against the University of Memphis being awarded the contract due to the very racial disparities Commissioner Brooks pointed out then chose to ignore.
Legal Implications and Community Reaction Expanded
The allegations put forth in this lawsuit, if confirmed, may set off a domino effect of legal consequences, including potential federal criminal charges under the Sherman Act and the False Claims Act. Such charges could lead to hefty fines and substantial prison sentences for the implicated parties. The potential legal fallout is just the tip of the iceberg; the broader societal implications are profound. Public trust, already fragile in regions grappling with issues of governance and racial inequality, could be further eroded. This erosion is not limited to general community sentiment but could severely affect the political careers and reputations of local officials, particularly the Shelby County Commissioners.
If they fail to investigate and address the grievances brought forth by their constituents, they not only risk personal and professional repercussions but also may contribute to systemic failures in governance. Moreover, by potentially rubber-stamping decisions without adequate scrutiny and failing to investigate complaints adequately, the Commissioners could be violating the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution. This neglect could be seen as a dereliction of their duty to ensure that all actions under their governance adhere to constitutional principles, thus potentially breaching their sworn oath to uphold and protect the rights of their constituents.
The situation demands a critical examination of public accountability and ethical governance, making this case a focal point for legal experts, civil rights advocates, and policymakers alike. The outcome could lead to substantial changes in how public contracts are awarded and monitored, not just in Shelby County but potentially setting precedents for other regions across the nation.
Revolutionary Court Action Sought to Overhaul Shelby County Contracting Practices
In an ingenious move by Kiner, to get minority and women contractors more opportunity, his lawsuit calls for emergency injunctive relief as follows:
- Immediate Suspension: An immediate halt to any current or pending Single Source or Sole Source contracts within Shelby County Government, pending further review.
- Implementation of Transparent Bidding Procedures: An order mandating Defendants to contract out to a third party the implementation of fair, transparent, and nondiscriminatory bidding procedures to ensure all qualified entities have equal access to government contracts to prevent the continuation of 95% of contracts being awarded to non-minority firms.
- Judicial Review of Single Source and Sole Source Contracts: An order requiring that any and all Single Source and Sole Source designations by Shelby County Government undergo judicial review for a period of five years or whatever seems reasonable to this Honorable Court to prevent further collusion and bid rigging practices, ensuring compliance with standards of fairness and transparency.
Some procurement experts we have reached out to have stated, in unison, that the proposal by Kiner for judicial review and oversight of single source and sole source contracts in Shelby County is pivotal for local minority and women-owned contractors. They say, it aims to establish a transparent and equitable bidding process, ensuring that all qualified businesses have an equal opportunity to secure government contracts. This oversight, in the eyes of some, could significantly reduce the risks of collusion and bid rigging, fostering a fairer economic environment and potentially increasing participation from historically underrepresented groups in local government procurement.
Community Development Initiatives
In a bold move to address systemic injustices, Pastor Kiner plans to establish a $25M endowment fund specifically for minority and women-owned contractors who have been victims of discriminatory contracting practices by Shelby County Government. This initiative is a direct response to concerns highlighted by Commissioner Brittany Thornton, who noted that only about 5% of Shelby County Government spending goes to minority vendors. This fund aims to provide these contractors with the financial support and opportunities they have historically been denied locally, fostering greater equity within the local economic landscape. This fund will be sourced from the punitive damages sought in the lawsuit, underlining Kiner’s commitment to not just seeking justice but also fostering substantial systemic change.
Key Quote from the Complaint
“The procurement process was marred by corruption and manipulation, evidenced by Dr. Michelle Taylor’s statements… This level of pre-award detail and coordination underscores that the University of Memphis had privileged, inside knowledge not available to other potential bidders, supporting clear allegations of bid rigging, collusion, and conspiracy,” the complaint states.
New Information
Upon a thorough examination of the Shelby County Government’s Single/Sole Source Justification Form, it is crucial to underscore Mr. Gloster’s admissions, which unequivocally expose the favoritism that pervades this award process. The decision to select the University of Memphis lacks a foundation rooted in the superior quality of services or the exclusive nature of the goods provided. Mr. Gloster stated on the form, “The University of Memphis is already working with the Shelby County Health Department (SCHD)… and is “uniquely positioned” to work on this new opportunity.
Kiner’s lawsuit states, “Mr. Gloster has openly admitted that his choice was influenced by improper biases, not by the requirement that ‘goods, equipment, and supplies can only be obtained from one source or are so exclusive that they are limited to and held exclusively by one vendor,’ as he marked on the Single/Sole Source Procurement Document.”
Kiner argues in his federal lawsuit that Mr. Gloster’s admissions “raise significant concerns regarding the integrity of the procurement process and warrant legal remedy.” According to Kiner, the services provided by the University of Memphis—supplying ten students as health navigators and analyzing data—are neither exclusive nor unique, and could be easily managed by his organization or many other savvy minority-owned and women-owned contractors.
Kiner adds in his lawsuit “these statements by Mr. Gloster not only reveal a disregard for fair competition but also highlight a stark deviation from the principles of equity that should govern procurement processes—a deviation that systematically undermines the interests of other qualified minority vendors. The term “uniquely positioned,” used by Mr. Gloster, at first glance, may seem to imply a specialized capability. However, it effectively serves as a euphemism for favoritism, veiling the biases that influence procurement decisions. This language, recognized by the court for what it represents, is critical for advocating a transparent approach to vendor selection that prioritizes genuine merit over positional advantage, thus opening the door for disenfranchised minority vendors to compete fairly.”
Looking Forward
As this case progresses, it is poised to deeply probe the complex dynamics of race, power, and public finance in Shelby County, potentially setting new benchmarks for legal and ethical governance. This lawsuit could significantly reshape public accountability standards, not just locally but nationally. The implications extend beyond the immediate legal framework; they touch on foundational issues of fairness and equity in government contracting. Legal experts, civil rights advocates, and policymakers will likely watch this case closely as it challenges entrenched systems and seeks to pioneer reforms that ensure all contractors, especially those from historically marginalized groups, receive equitable treatment. The outcome of this litigation could serve as a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle for racial and economic justice in America, catalyzing further reforms across various levels of government.
About Post Author
