802 F. Supp. 2d 73
D.D.C.2011Background
- Ibrahim, a laborer, worked at Park Vista and Fort View in DC and was paid $12.54/hour versus $18/hour at a prior job; Fort View was Davis-Bacon, Park Vista contract references Davis-Bacon.
- Ibrahim filed a DC Small Claims action for $5,000 alleging breach of contract and failure to pay differential wages, then Mid-Atlantic removed to federal court and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Defendant argued Ibrahim could not sue under the Davis-Bacon Act because there is no private right of action to recover unpaid wages; claim raised jurisdictional questions.
- Ibrahim argued the Act did not apply because projects were contracted with DC, and thus asserted his claims did not arise under the Act; the court would later rule to the contrary on the jurisdictional basis.
- The court concluded the Davis-Bacon Act applies to contracts where the DC or federal government is a party and that the Fort View and Park Vista projects fall under the Act; jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §1331, but no private right of action exists under 40 U.S.C. §1342.
- The court held that Ibrahim’s attempt to bring the claim under DC contract law would be an impermissible end-run around the Act, and thus dismissed the complaint; amendments to save the action were not permitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Davis-Bacon Act provide a private right of action? | Ibrahim argued the claims may fail under DC law; the complaint contends no private action is necessary, but there is no separate private remedy under the Act. | The majority and circuit authority hold there is no private right of action to recover unpaid wages under the Davis-Bacon Act. | No private right of action exists; complaint dismissed. |
| Do Ibrahim's wage claims arise under the Davis-Bacon Act or DC contract law, and does this affect jurisdiction? | Claims are grounded in DC law rather than the Act. | Act applies to federally or DC-party construction contracts; the project contracts invoke Davis-Bacon; thus claims arise under the Act. | Claims arise under federal law (Davis-Bacon Act) providing federal jurisdiction; private remedy remains unavailable. |
| May the plaintiff amend the complaint to cure jurisdiction or pleading defects? | Reserve right to amend to plead RICO, conspiracy, or labor-law claims if necessary. | Opposition does not show amendment would salvage under Davis-Bacon Act; requested amendments would not cure the fundamental defect. | Amendment request not considered; cannot save the action; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grochowski v. Phoenix Constr., 318 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2003) (no private right of action under Davis-Bacon Act; private enforcement inconsistent with Act's purpose)
- Bradbury v. TLT Constr. Corp., 138 F. Supp. 2d 237 (D.R.I. 2001) (majority view that there is no private right of action under the Act)
- Kenney v. Roland Parson Contracting Corp., 790 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D.D.C. 1992) (D.C. Circuit not addressing the private right of action; related dicta)
- Buggs v. Powell, 293 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D.D.C. 2003) (court may treat unaddressed dispositive arguments as conceded)
- Morrison-Knudsen Constr. Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 461 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1983) (Davis-Bacon Act coverage of virtually all construction projects involving the United States or DC)