On Jan. 21 Mayor Don Williamson of Flint, Mich., issued an executive order directing the city not to do business with any enterprise or person who had sued the city during the previous five years. Last week he announced a retreat from that policy, his spokesman saying a record of having sued the city would henceforth be considered as one factor among others rather than as an automatic bar to doing business.
Williamson’s original order had been criticized on various grounds, and the local ACLU chapter had threatened — what else? — to sue the city over the policy. Now, it should be noted that a municipality’s blanket refusal to do business with lawsuit-filers very likely might run afoul of various laws: employment discrimination statutes, to take one notable example, typically include provisions banning employers from “retaliating” against persons who sue under them. Other state laws on topics such as procurement might also be plausibly implicated, and perhaps constitutional doctrines as well. On the other hand, news accounts portray the ACLU chapter as adventurously asserting some sort of universal if heretofore unenumerated right not to be retaliated against by any official body on the grounds of a record of litigiousness — so that an asphalt contractor, for example, with a record of getting into repeated wrangles with the city over the terms of past contracts might have a constitutional right not to have that held against it in future competition for business. Given Flint’s announced policy of continuing to consider proneness to litigation as one factor among others, it may be predicted that the controversy has not been finally put to rest. (Christofer Machniak, “Flint’s no-sue policy modified”, Flint Journal, Feb. 25; “Flint rescinds policy barring business with companies who have sued city”, AP/Detroit Free Press, Feb. 24).