492 Mass. 641
Mass.2023Background
- Plaintiff Chad Marsh worked as an equipment operator for Massachusetts Coastal Railroad LLC (MCR) and alleges he was paid less than Massachusetts' prevailing wage while performing work on State public-works projects, including the South Coast Rail commuter-rail restoration.
- Marsh sued under the Massachusetts Prevailing Wage Act (G. L. c. 149, §§ 26–27H) and related wage statutes for unpaid prevailing wages and overtime; MCR and its manager moved to dismiss.
- Defendants argued federal preemption under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA), 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b), and alternatively challenged whether the projects Marsh worked on qualify as State "public works."
- The Superior Court denied the motion to dismiss; the defendants appealed interlocutorily and the Supreme Judicial Court heard the preemption and pleading issues.
- The SJC evaluated express preemption under the ICCTA, field preemption (including reliance on the Adamson Act / historical federal regulation), and conflict preemption (alleged clash with Davis–Bacon federal wage rules), and whether Marsh plausibly pleaded work on public works.
- Holding: the SJC affirmed denial of the motion to dismiss — the Prevailing Wage Act is not preempted (expressly, by field, or by conflict) and Marsh’s complaint plausibly alleges covered public-works employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ICCTA expressly preempts the Prevailing Wage Act | Marsh: State prevailing-wage law governs public-works contracts and is a valid exercise of State police powers | MCR: ICCTA preemption of "regulation of rail transportation" displaces State wage laws as applied to rail contractors | Court: ICCTA preempts only state laws that regulate rail transportation; Prevailing Wage Act is a general, contractual/public-works law with incidental effects and is not expressly preempted |
| Whether federal law occupies the field of railroad wages (field preemption) | Marsh: No exclusive federal scheme governing wages paid on State public-works projects | MCR: Historical federal statutes (e.g., Adamson Act) and federal regulation imply Congress intended to occupy the field of railroad wages | Court: No clear congressional intent to occupy field; Adamson Act was temporary and does not demonstrate a manifest intent to preempt State wage laws |
| Whether state prevailing-wage requirements conflict with federal wage-law objectives (conflict preemption) | Marsh: State law supplements federal protections; both can be complied with | MCR: State prevailing-wage rules conflict with federal treatment (e.g., Davis–Bacon/DOT guidance excluding certain railwork) | Court: No impossibility or obstacle to federal objectives; state scheme is supplemental and does not frustrate Davis–Bacon goals |
| Whether Marsh plausibly alleged work on "public works" to survive a motion to dismiss | Marsh: Complaint alleges MCR contracted with the Commonwealth on public-works projects (South Coast Rail) and Marsh performed qualifying construction/equipment-operator work | MCR: Contracts lacked public-bid/prevailing-wage formalities and projects therefore are not "public works" | Court: At pleading stage Marsh’s factual allegations plausibly allege covered public-works work; dismissal premature |
Key Cases Cited
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993) (interpretation of express preemption clauses begins with statutory text)
- California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr., N.A., Inc., 519 U.S. 316 (1997) (reluctance to find preemption of state prevailing-wage laws absent clear congressional intent)
- Florida E. Coast Ry. v. West Palm Beach, 266 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2001) (ICCTA preemption limited to state laws that actually regulate rail transportation)
- PCS Phosphate Co. v. Norfolk S. Corp., 559 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 2009) (enforcement of voluntarily assumed contract terms with railroads not preempted by ICCTA)
- New York Susquehanna & W. Ry. v. Jackson, 500 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2007) (preemption analysis focuses on degree to which state law burdens rail transportation)
- Green Mountain R.R. v. Vermont, 404 F.3d 638 (2d Cir. 2005) (distinguishing generally applicable regulations from preempted measures that block rail construction/operations)
- Donis v. American Waste Servs., LLC, 485 Mass. 257 (Mass. 2020) (Prevailing Wage Act governs payment rules on public-works projects)