Valerio v. Moore Landscapes, 156 N.E.3d 61

Plaintiffs (12 landscape laborers) alleged Moore Landscapes underpaid them while performing tree‑planting/landscaping work for the Chicago Park District, receiving $18/hr instead of the prevailing laborer rate of $41.20/hr.
Plaintiffs attached the Park District contracts showing the sole prevailing‑wage clause: “Contractor shall pay all persons employed… prevailing wages where applicable,” but no explicit stipulation that the project was subject to the Prevailing Wage Act.
Plaintiffs sued under section 11 of the Prevailing Wage Act seeking unpaid wages, punitive damages, interest, and fees. They also submitted affidavits describing work that included new tree installations and hardscape tasks.
Moore moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2‑619.1 and 2‑615, arguing (1) §11 remedies are limited to differences between contract‑stipulated rates and amounts paid and the contracts lacked the required stipulation, and (2) the complaint failed to allege work covered by the Wage Act.
The trial court granted dismissal under 2‑619(a)(9), holding plaintiffs’ §11 claim was barred because the contracts did not stipulate the project was subject to the Wage Act.
The appellate court reversed: it held a public‑body/contractor failure to include the statutory stipulation does not eliminate an individual laborer’s §11 right to recover prevailing wages; the complaint also adequately pleaded work covered by the Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a contractor/public‑body failure to include the statutory §4 stipulation (that the project is subject to the Prevailing Wage Act) bars a laborer’s private right of action under §11	Valerio: §11 creates an independent right to recover the wage difference for laborers on covered public works; missing stipulation in the contract does not extinguish that right	Moore: §11 permits recovery only when a contract stipulates the rate; absent the required stipulation, employees cannot pursue §11 remedies and must rely on the Department	Reversed trial court. The court held the absence of a §4 stipulation in the contract does not defeat an individual §11 claim if the work is otherwise covered by the Wage Act
Whether plaintiffs’ complaint sufficiently alleged work covered by the Prevailing Wage Act (survival of a 2‑615 attack)	Valerio: complaints and affidavits allege planting new trees and hardscape tasks—work that may be construction/public works under the Act	Moore: allegations were conclusory and did not show the type of construction/hardscape work covered by the Act	The complaint (with affidavits) pleaded sufficient facts to survive a 2‑615 motion; dismissal on that ground would be inappropriate

Ferguson v. City of Chicago, 213 Ill. 2d 94 (2004) (accept as true well‑pleaded facts and reasonable inferences when reviewing a 2‑619 dismissal)
Feitmeier v. Feitmeier, 207 Ill. 2d 263 (2003) (statutory interpretation and review de novo)
Abrahamson v. Illinois Dep’t of Prof’l Regulation, 153 Ill. 2d 76 (1992) (primary rule: give effect to legislative intent and statutory language)
Van Horne v. Muller, 185 Ill. 2d 299 (1998) (2‑615 challenges attack legal sufficiency of the complaint)
Wakulich v. Mraz, 203 Ill. 2d 223 (2003) (review de novo of 2‑615 rulings)
King v. First Capital Financial Services Corp., 215 Ill. 2d 1 (2005) (construe allegations in plaintiff’s favor for pleading sufficiency)
Canel v. Topinka, 212 Ill. 2d 311 (2004) (a cause of action should not be dismissed under 2‑615 unless no set of facts could entitle plaintiff to relief)
Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (2006) (plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to bring a claim within a legally recognized cause of action)