# Khalifa v. State

> Court of Appeals of Minnesota · December 9, 1986 · 397 N.W.2d 383

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9884236

## Case

- **Full name:** Akmed KHALIFA, Individually and D.B.A. Lampeo, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Minnesota
- **Decided:** December 9, 1986
- **Citations:** 397 N.W.2d 383
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Popovich
- **Judges:** Heard
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9884236

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that appellant stated MHRA claim for discrimination in access to public services under disparate-impact theory

## Opinion text

POPOVICH, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the trial court for the following reasons:
1. The Commissioner of Administration is empowered to set-aside procurements for small businesses owned and operated by socially or economically disadvantaged persons. Minn.Stat. § 16B.19, subd. 5. Here the Commissioner never initiated set-aside procedures for the State’s 1982 light bulb contract. See id. subd. 3. Instead, the State small business coordinator represented to Khalifa that the contract was desig *391 nated for the set-aside program. Reliance on that representation was erroneous. The coordinator was not empowered to bind the Commissioner. It is within the Commissioner’s discretion, and is his function, to designate set-aside procurements.
2. The Commissioner did not abuse his discretion in determining the State’s 1982 light bulb contract should be awarded through competitive bidding. While Khali-fa may have properly shown a presumption of discrimination, the State effectively rebutted that presumption. The State explained competitive bidding was utilized, because the set-aside program would have resulted in single bidder procurement. To allow a single bidder in awarding such an extensive State contract creates unreasonable danger regarding fairness in purchase price. The procurement division’s practice of setting an estimated price does not adequately protect against this danger. The Commissioner is duty-bound to fairly protect the State’s interests.
3. Khalifa advanced nothing to show that the Commissioner’s basis for action was a mere pretext for-racial discrimination. In fact the State’s 1983 light bulb contract, also awarded by competitive bidding, was presented to Khalifa.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9884236. Public record. Not legal advice.