Valerio v. Moore Landscapes, LLC
183 N.E.3d 105
Ill.2021Background:
- Twelve tree planters (plaintiffs) sued Moore Landscapes, LLC under section 11 of the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act seeking backpay, 2% statutory punitive damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorney fees.
- Plaintiffs alleged they were paid $18/hour but should have received the Cook County prevailing laborer rate of $41.20/hour for work performed under three contracts between Moore and the Chicago Park District.
- Each contract contained a clause: “Contractor shall pay all persons employed by [Contractor] … prevailing wages where applicable.”
- Plaintiffs relied on Department of Labor guidance (and affidavits from some workers alleging hardscape work) to contend their landscaping work was covered by the Act.
- The circuit court granted Moore’s section 2-619(a)(9) motion and dismissed the complaint for failure to plead a contract stipulation of a prevailing rate; the appellate court reversed; the Illinois Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed dismissal, holding the contract language was not a clear stipulation triggering a §11 action against the contractor.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §11 authorizes a wage-recovery action against a contractor when the contract lacks a clear stipulation to pay prevailing wages | §11 permits workers to recover from contractor; the contracts’ prevailing-wage clause is sufficient | §11 is limited to cases where the contract expressly stipulates the rate; conditional language is insufficient | Held for defendant — §11 relief applies only where the contract contains a clear stipulation to pay prevailing rates; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the clause “prevailing wages where applicable” satisfies the §4(a-1) stipulation/notice requirement | Clause gives adequate notice and constitutes a contractual stipulation | The conditional “when applicable” language fails to stipulate that prevailing wages apply to the work | Held for defendant — conditional clause is not a clear stipulation under the Act |
| If public body failed to give proper notice, can plaintiffs still obtain §11 remedies (penalties, interest, attorney fees) from contractor? | Plaintiffs argue §11 remedies should be available or implied to effectuate policy | Defendant argues liability for penalties/interest shifts to public body under §4(a-3); §11 presumes proper notice | Held for defendant — when notice is insufficient, contractor’s exposure is narrower; penalties/interest may shift to public body under §4(a-3); §11 remedies not available absent stipulation |
| Whether an implied private right of action exists to obtain §11-type remedies if §11 does not apply | Plaintiffs invoke policy and liberal construction to imply remedy | Defendant: express statutory remedy precludes implying another private cause of action | Held for defendant — no implied §11 action; express statute controls (express remedy precludes implication) |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Meter v. Darien Park Dist., 207 Ill. 2d 359 (standard for resolving a section 2-619 motion)
- Sandholm v. Kuecker, 2012 IL 111443 (statutory construction principles; read statute as a whole)
- McIntosh v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., 2019 IL 123626 (definition of "affirmative matter" under section 2-619)
- Gallagher v. Lenart, 226 Ill. 2d 208 (contract construction is a question of law)
- Deal v. Byford, 127 Ill. 2d 192 (purpose of punitive damages: punishment and deterrence)
- Fisher v. Lexington Health Care, Inc., 188 Ill. 2d 455 (express statutory remedy precludes implying a private cause of action)
- Hartney Fuel Oil Co. v. Hamer, 2013 IL 115130 (agency interpretations are relevant when ascertaining legislative intent)