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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?