ILNews

2 contractors accused of wage violations accept plea deals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Marion County Prosecutor's Office has reached plea agreements in two cases in which a contractor was accused of paying workers less than the required wage on publicly financed projects.

Art Rafati, who owns Artistic Construction Inc., allegedly underpaid four employees on a curb and sidewalk project in Center Township. Rafati, 64, pleaded guilty to one count of theft, a class D felony, and four counts of Common Construction Wage violation, a class B misdemeanor.

In a separate case, drywall contractor David Roark pleaded guilty to a theft charge for underpaying for work on the Barton Towers remodeling project in downtown Indianapolis.

The Marion County Prosecutor's Office has pursued three cases alleging Common Construction Wage violations since 2011. The Common Construction Wage is a rate of pay specified by local committees for any state or locally funded projects over $350,000. Rates are set for three classes of worker: skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled.

“The significance of this is not only individual employees not getting paid what they’re owed, but the contractors and subcontractors who play by the rules can’t effectively bid against those who go into it knowing they’re going to cheat,” said Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry.

A contractor can afford to under-bid for a project knowing they are going to make that money back by not paying their employees the Common Construction Wage, Curry said.

In 2011, the Marion County Prosecutor's Office obtained the state's first conviction in a common-wage case, against White River Mechanical, a subcontractor for two Indianapolis Public Schools projects.

Prosecutors in 2013 brought charges against Roark, who has agreed to pay the workers $24,311 in restitution. His company, D. Roark Drywall LLC, landed a $417,607 contract on the project. He allegedly paid some employees as little as $12 per hour, when his contract required he pay a minimum common wage plus fringe benefits of $39.91 per hour.

The prosecutor’s office alleges Rafati failed to pay four employees the Common Construction Wage on a city project for curbs, sidewalks and ramp replacement and repair in Center Township.

Rafati is scheduled for an initial hearing this week. As a part of his plea agreement, he has agreed to pay $9,175 in restitution to the victims.

Each town or county is responsible for setting the Common Construction Wage at a publicly held committee hearing. As of July 1, 2011, the wage scales adopted by the local committees cover all construction projects within three months of the scale's adoption.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT