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Inc. v. Coutu, 450 U.S. 754 (1981), and the subsequent decisions interpreting those decisions, all of which superseded the Seventh Circuit’s decision in McDaniel v. University of Chicago, 548 F.2d 689 (7th Cir. 1977); as well as the Indiana Court of Appeals decision in Stampco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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The child support award is many times what the custodial parent earns, and exceeds the actual costs of providing for the children's needs. My fiance and I have agreed that if we divorce, that the children will be provided for using a shared checking account like this one(http://www.mediate.com/articles/if_they_can_do_parenting_plans.cfm) to avoid the hidden alimony in Indiana's child support guidelines.

  2. Fiat justitia ruat caelum is a Latin legal phrase, meaning "Let justice be done though the heavens fall." The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realized regardless of consequences.

  3. Indiana up holds this behavior. the state police know they got it made.

  4. Additional Points: -Civility in the profession: Treating others with respect will not only move others to respect you, it will show a shared respect for the legal system we are all sworn to protect. When attorneys engage in unnecessary personal attacks, they lose the respect and favor of judges, jurors, the person being attacked, and others witnessing or reading the communication. It's not always easy to put anger aside, but if you don't, you will lose respect, credibility, cases, clients & jobs or job opportunities. -Read Rule 22 of the Admission & Discipline Rules. Capture that spirit and apply those principles in your daily work. -Strive to represent clients in a manner that communicates the importance you place on the legal matter you're privileged to handle for them. -There are good lawyers of all ages, but no one is perfect. Older lawyers can learn valuable skills from younger lawyers who tend to be more adept with new technologies that can improve work quality and speed. Older lawyers have already tackled more legal issues and worked through more of the problems encountered when representing clients on various types of legal matters. If there's mutual respect and a willingness to learn from each other, it will help make both attorneys better lawyers. -Erosion of the public trust in lawyers wears down public confidence in the rule of law. Always keep your duty to the profession in mind. -You can learn so much by asking questions & actively listening to instructions and advice from more experienced attorneys, regardless of how many years or decades you've each practiced law. Don't miss out on that chance.

  5. Agreed on 4th Amendment call - that was just bad policing that resulted in dismissal for repeat offender. What kind of parent names their boy "Kriston"?

ADVERTISEMENT