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Inc. v. Coutu, 450 U.S. 754 (1981), and the subsequent decisions interpreting those decisions, all of which superseded the Seventh Circuit’s decision in McDaniel v. University of Chicago, 548 F.2d 689 (7th Cir. 1977); as well as the Indiana Court of Appeals decision in Stampco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. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT