A Chicago subcontractor has launched a $40 million lawsuit against a firm overseeing the construction of the Obama Presidential Center, alleging discriminatory practices led to excessive work and financial strain. Robert McGee, owner of II in One, claims New York-based Thornton Tomasetti imposed unreasonable standards for concrete and rebar, deviating from industry norms and causing significant cost overruns. McGee alleges these actions were racially motivated and pushed his company towards bankruptcy.

Thornton Tomasetti, however, refutes these claims, asserting that II in One's inexperience and inadequate performance were the root cause of the delays and increased expenses. A memo from Thornton Tomasetti to the Obama Foundation highlights cracked slabs and exposed rebar as evidence of the subcontractor's shortcomings. The memo also details extensive time spent reviewing and correcting the contractor's work, and alleges a “multitude of problems in the field.” The firm insists they provided significant assistance to the subcontractor team, going beyond what would be necessary for more qualified companies.

The lawsuit contends that Thornton Tomasetti unfairly criticized II in One's qualifications while deeming non-minority-owned contractors sufficiently qualified. McGee seeks reimbursement for the substantial construction costs absorbed by his firm and its joint venture partner. The lawsuit describes the situation as an African American-owned business facing closure due to alleged racial discrimination. The Obama Foundation, while not a party to the lawsuit, stated it has no reason to believe Thornton Tomasetti acted with racist intent and that the concrete work, largely completed, will not be delayed. The Foundation emphasized it would take immediate action against any vendor exhibiting racist behavior.

This legal dispute adds to the ongoing challenges surrounding the Obama Presidential Center project. The construction, initially slated for 2018, has been delayed to a projected 2026 opening. Community concerns persist regarding potential displacement due to rising housing costs, while environmental groups have voiced criticism about the project’s impact on trees and wildlife habitats. Despite past legal challenges and community pushback, the project continues to move forward.