Ohio Supreme Court Rules that Contractors Must Be Assessed 100% Penalty for Violating State's Prevailing Wage Law

The Ohio Supreme CourtIn Bergman v. Monarch Construction Company, the Ohio Supreme Court considered whether, in an employee-initiated enforcement action, the penalties set forth in Ohio Revised Code section 4115.10(A) are mandatory and must be imposed against a party found to have violated the prevailing wage law. In a 5-2 majority opinion, the supreme court rejected the reasoning adopted by the trial court and the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, both of which had interpreted the language in section 4115.10(A) as giving the trial court discretion to enforce the prevailing wage penalties. The supreme court observed that in section 4115.10(A), the phrase “may recover” refers to the choice the underpaid employee can make to enforce his or her right to recover the underpayment, not the court’s choice to enforce the penalties. Therefore, if the employee chooses to enforce his or her statutory right to recover unpaid wages, and successfully proves his or her case, a 100% penalty must be assessed against the employer for violating the prevailing wage law. For further analysis, see Littler’s ASAP Ohio Supreme Court’s Ruling on Penalties Ups the Ante for Contractors Subject to Ohio’s Prevailing Wage Law by Heidi Alten and Neil Grindstaff.

This entry was written by Neil Grindstaff.

California Labor Commissioner Debars Contractors for Prevailing Wage Violations

In its ongoing enforcement efforts of California's public works laws, the State Labor Commissioner's Office issued a press release on March 10, 2010, announcing that two Southern California contractors would be prohibited from bidding on or receiving any public works projects for three years beginning April 19, 2010. California Labor Commissioner Angela Bradstreet explained that the Orders of Debarment were necessary due to the contractors’ “deliberate and willful attempts to skirt the law,” which “will not be tolerated as they take unfair advantage of employees as well as tax payers who fund these public works projects.”

Continue Reading...

State Building and Construction Trade Councils of California, AFL CIO v. City of Vista Court of Appeal Decision

This most recent on the city charter exemption in State Building and Construction Trade Council of California, AFL-CIO v. City of Vista (4/28/09) D052181 (PDF), is a favorable one for city contractors who might do work for chartered cities. The court held that chartered cities are exempted from the requirements of the prevailing wage statute, Labor Code section 1720, et seq. under the municipal affairs clause of the California Constitution. The victory may be short-lived, given the number of amicus on this appellate decision, including California’s Attorney General, which filed a brief in support of the Building Trade Councils. The “municipal affairs exemption” is ripe for Supreme Court review. Those following prevailing wage cases will recall that many anticipated a decision from the California Supreme Court in City of Long Beach v. Department of Industrial Relations (2004) 34 Cal.4th 942 on the municipal affairs exemption but were disappointed when the California Supreme Court reached a decision on other grounds and failed to address the exemption.

Continue Reading...