Ramos v. SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65593
| E.D.N.Y | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs, current/former SimplexGrinnell employees, allege they were not paid prevailing wages on state and local public works projects under NY Labor Law § 220(3).
- defendant SimplexGrinnell is a nationwide fire-safety contractor with centralized payroll practices; thousands of public works contracts exist, with only some produced in discovery.
- Court addresses class certification, cross motions for summary judgment, and a Daubert challenge to plaintiffs’ damages expert.
- New York law requires prevailing wage on public works; no private right of action exists until a favorable administrative determination, but third-party beneficiary theory allows breach claims.
- Court evaluates whether the contracts themselves must be produced, whether TI (testing/inspection) work is within § 220, and whether LMRA preemption and other defenses defeat relief, while considering expert testimony reliability.
- Court grants class certification; denies some portions of defendant’s summary judgment motion; and denies Daubert challenge, with partial summary judgment for TI work and fifth claim being denied/limited as discussed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether class certification is proper under Rule 23(b)(3). | Class-wide wage-denial policy exists. | Issues vary by project; not common. | Class certification granted. |
| Whether LMRA preempts wage claims in counties with multiple rates. | Preemption should not apply; rates set by statute/fiscal officer. | LMRA preempts if CBAs determine rates. | LMRA preemption does not apply. |
| Whether third-party beneficiary breach claims can proceed without attaching all contracts. | NY law requires prevail wage provisions; contracts impliedly include them. | Contracts essential to prove coverage. | Third-party beneficiary claims not barred for lack of contract production. |
| Whether TI (testing/inspection) work is within § 220 coverage and thus recoverable. | TI work should be covered; retroactive/prospective issue noted. | DOL opinion prospectively limits TI coverage; not recoverable. | TI work damages barred; TI portion granted to summary judgment. |
| Whether the expert damages testimony is admissible and reliable under Daubert. | Dr. Crawford’s data shows class-wide damages; methodology sound. | Methodological flaws/weekly matching issues. | Daubert motion denied; Crawford's testimony admitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (significant proof of a general policy required for commonality; not present here)
- In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litig., 280 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2001) (predominance focuses on whether liability can be proven on a class-wide basis)
- Gortat v. Capala Bros., Inc., 257 F.R.D. 353 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (commonality and typicality satisfied where unified payroll practices exist)
- Noble v. 93 Univ. Place Corp., 224 F.R.D. 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (common questions exist when employees share a policy denying wages)
- Fata v. S.A. Healy Co., 289 N.Y. 401 (N.Y. 1943) (third-party beneficiary theory supports wage claims under § 220)
- Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (1985) (preemption analysis; CBAs not automatically controlling)