813 F. Supp. 2d 4
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege unpaid wages on federally funded projects under Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) and state wage statutes.
- Defendants Prospect Waterproofing and owner George Barlow allegedly paid below DBA prevailing rates.
- Plaintiffs’ amended complaint asserts DCWPCL, DC Minimum Wage Act, and quantum meruit claims.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing no private DBA right of action exists and state claims fail as vehicles around the Act.
- Court addresses whether the DBA provides a private right of action and whether state-law claims circumvent administrative DBA remedies.
- Court dismisses the complaint for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does DBA provide a private right of action? | Johnson contends DBA allows private wage recovery. | Barlow argues no private right of action exists under DBA. | No private right of action under DBA. |
| Can state-law wage claims proceed to bypass DBA remedies? | State-law claims arise from DBA wages but are grounded in DC law. | Circumventing DBA by state-law claims is impermissible end run. | State-law claims barred as end run around DBA. |
| Should plaintiffs’ federal wage claims be treated as implied in state law claims? | DCWPCL and DC Minimum Wage Act create actionable claims for unpaid wages tied to DBA. | No implied private right under state law to enforce federal wage rules. | No implied private right; claims indistinguishable from DBA violation. |
| Are Grochowski/Ibrahim/Glynn authorities controlling? | These cases support some private enforcement under state law. | Those decisions reject private DBA remedies; apply to end-run claims. | Court adopts Grochowski line; end-run barred. |
| What is the governing framework for this dismissal analysis? | Plaintiffs rely on state statutes to enforce federal wages. | Administrative DBA scheme preempts private state-law enforcement. | Complaint dismissed for failure to state claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grochowski v. Phoenix Construction, 318 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2003) (no private right to enforce DBA through state-law claims)
- Ibrahim v. Mid-Atlantic Air of DC, LLC, 2011 WL 3489110 (D.D.C. 2011) (majority banded on no private DBA right; end-run around DBA)
- Danielsen v. Burnside-Ott Aviation Training Center, Inc., 941 F.2d 1220 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (SCA private action not implied, obstructing DBA remedies)
- Chan v. City of New York, 1 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 1993) (§1983 presumption differs from DBA context)
- Universities Research Ass’n v. Coutu, 450 U.S. 754 (Supreme Court 1981) (no private right for back wages under similar contracts)
- Glynn v. Capeletti Bros., 621 F.2d 1309 (5th Cir. 1980) (four Cort v. Ash factors for private remedies)