NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557- 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 18-P-142 Appeals Court ELMER DONIS & others1 vs. AMERICAN WASTE SERVICES, LLC, & others.2 No. 18-P-142. Norfolk. December 12, 2018. - May 22, 2019. Present: Vuono, Hanlon, & Shin, JJ. Massachusetts Wage Act. Contract, Public works, Performance and breach, Third party beneficiary. Labor, Public works, Wages, Minimum wage. Minimum Wage. Public Works, Wage determination. Administrative Law, Wage administration. Municipal Corporations, Contracts. Employment, Records. Limited Liability Company. Common Law. Civil actions commenced in the Superior Court Department on August 1, 2012, and February 21, 2013. After consolidation, a motion for partial summary judgment as to liability only was heard by Brian A. Davis, J.; pretrial motions were heard by him; and entry of final judgment on stipulated damages was ordered by him. Gregory V. Sullivan (Michael P. Morizio also present) for the defendants. Nicole Horberg Decter for the plaintiffs. 1 Juan Florian, Melvin Granados, Wilfrido Monterroso, Edgar Ruiz, Edvin Sambrano, Ismael Sambrano, Enrique Sarceno, Victor Serrano, and Obdulio Albeno. 2 Christopher Carney and Michael Galvin. 2 The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Maura Healey, Attorney General, & Karla E. Zarbo, Assistant Attorney General, for the Attorney General. Joseph L. Sulman for Massachusetts Employment Lawyers Association. Liliana Ibara & Joseph J. Michalakes, Greater Boston Legal Services, for Immigrant Worker Center Collaborative. SHIN, J. The plaintiffs brought this action to recover prevailing wages they say are owed to them under G. L. c. 149, § 27F, which mandates payment of a specific minimum wage for certain public works contracts. Judgment entered for the plaintiffs, and the defendants appeal, raising numerous issues. Chief among them are (1) whether § 27F requires, as a condition precedent to liability, that the public authority awarding the contract obtain a wage rate schedule from the Department of Labor Standards (department) concurrently with execution of the contract, and (2) whether the plaintiffs can recover for damages they incurred outside § 27F's three-year statute of limitations by bringing a common-law claim for breach of contract as intended third-party beneficiaries. As to the first issue, we conclude that a concurrent rate schedule is not a statutory prerequisite to imposing liability under § 27F, which is a strict liability statute that requires employers to stipulate in the contract to pay their employees the prevailing wage. But as to the second issue, we agree with the defendants that, in the 3 precise circumstances of this case, § 27F preempts3 the plaintiffs' common-law breach of contract claim, barring them from recovering outside the three-year limitations period. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part.4 Background. 1. Facts and statutory background. The following facts are undisputed or taken from the plaintiffs' statement of material ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals