176 F. Supp. 3d 4
D. Mass.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Jason O’Leary and Richard Leonard worked for New Hampshire Boring, Inc. (NH Boring) on the MBTA/ MassDOT Green Line Extension public construction project and allege they were paid well below the Massachusetts prevailing wage and received improper deductions.
- Plaintiffs allege prevailing wage rates were $54.90/hr (regular) and $82.35/hr (overtime); they were paid substantially less.
- Plaintiffs filed wage complaints with the Massachusetts Attorney General and obtained authorization to sue on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees.
- Defendants named: NH Boring (employer), Thomas Garside (president), and Jayne Burne (treasurer); Garside and Burne are statutorily deemed employers under the prevailing wage law.
- Complaint asserts four counts: (1) unlawful deductions (M.G.L. c.149, §148), (2) failure to pay overtime (M.G.L. c.151, §1A), (3) failure to pay prevailing wage (M.G.L. c.149, §27), and (4) quantum meruit/unjust enrichment; defendants moved to dismiss Counts Two–Four and the class allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count Three (prevailing wage) pleads required statutory preconditions | Complaint sufficiently alleges project was public and plaintiffs entitled to prevailing wage; pleads filing with AG and authorization to sue | Complaint must plead three specific statutory preconditions (designation by public body, Commissioner wage schedule, inclusion in bid solicitation) to state a claim | Denied dismissal: Rule 8 satisfied; need not plead every statutory step at pleading stage; Count Three survives |
| Whether Count Two (overtime) is viable independent claim | Overtime claim alleged actual underpayment for hours over 40 | Overtime claim is derivative of prevailing wage and should be dismissed if prevailing wage fails | Denied dismissal: overtime claim allowed to proceed as derivative of prevailing wage claim |
| Whether Count Four (quantum meruit) may proceed | Quantum meruit pleaded as alternative equitable remedy for restitution for services rendered and unpaid wages | Quantum meruit precluded if adequate remedy at law (contract/statutory remedies) and cannot impose unjust enrichment liability on individual officers absent basis | Partially granted: quantum meruit survives as to NH Boring; dismissed as to individual defendants Garside and Burne (no plausible benefit conferred on them personally) |
| Whether class allegations should be stricken at pleading stage | Class allegations appropriate; plaintiffs will develop facts in discovery to support certification | Class allegations are deficient on the face of the complaint and should be dismissed | Denied dismissal: striking class allegations at pleading stage is disfavored; discovery and certification process is the proper vehicle |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruiz v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp., 496 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007) (pleading standard; assume truth of well-pleaded facts)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (pleading must state plausible claim, not mere possibility)
- McCarty’s Case, 445 Mass. 361 (Mass. 2005) (prevailing wage law governs public works wage setting and payment)
- Calvi v. Knox County, 470 F.3d 422 (1st Cir. 2006) (Rule 8 notice-pleading principles)
- Manning v. Boston Med. Ctr. Corp., 725 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2013) (caution against striking class allegations solely on pleadings)
- Garcia-Catalan v. United States, 734 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 2013) (courts may draw on judicial experience/common sense in assessing plausibility)