ILNews

Indiana justices asked to answer question under Common Construction Wage Act

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

U.S. Judge Sarah Evans Barker has asked the Indiana Supreme Court to answer a certified question that arose in a pay dispute between a Fort Wayne electrician and Indianapolis-based Gaylor Inc.

Joshua Lewis claims that Gaylor failed to pay him the appropriate wage rate set for work he performed on the Purdue University Grounds Maintenance Facility, the Logansport Library, and other jobs. His suit alleges Gaylor intentionally exerted unauthorized control over his the wages and benefits he earned under the Common Construction Wage Act and the Davis-Bacon Act.

On Sept. 21, Barker adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on Lewis’ federal statutory claim, but stayed a ruling on the state claim until the Supreme Court gave guidance as to whether Lewis has a private cause of action under the CCWA. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the state claim.
 
Barker sent the following question to the justices on Sept. 21:

“Given the holdings by the United States Supreme Court in Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979) and Universities Research Association, Inc. v. Coutu, 450 U.S. 754 (1981), and the subsequent decisions interpreting those decisions, all of which superseded the Seventh Circuit’s decision in McDaniel v. University of Chicago, 548 F.2d 689 (7th Cir. 1977); as well as the Indiana Court of Appeals decision in Stampco Construction Co., Inc. v. Guffey, 572 N.E.2d 510 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991), which in a divided opinion relied on McDaniel; and given the absence of any ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court on issues raised therein: Does Indiana’s Common Construction Wage Act, IND. CODE § 5-16-7 et seq., permit or in some other fashion give rise to a private cause of action?”

The case is Joshua S. Lewis v. Gaylor Inc., 1:11-CV-01421, the Indianapolis Division of the Southern District of Indiana.

 

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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT