A group of electrical construction workers performed work on a federally funded construction project at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. The project was governed by a prime contract awarded by the United States Department of the Navy. That prime contract incorporated the Davis-Bacon Act and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act. Power Design, Inc. served as an electrical subcontractor on the project and hired additional subcontractors to complete installation work.
The electrical workers alleged that they regularly worked more than forty hours per week and were also required to arrive at the jobsite before the official start of their shifts to prepare for work. They alleged that this pre-shift time and overtime work were not fully compensated. Although the governing contracts incorporated the Davis-Bacon Act and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, the workers brought suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, and liquidated damages.
The workers filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Power Design moved for summary judgment. The company asserted that because the project was governed by the Davis-Bacon Act and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, the workers could not pursue claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The district court agreed with Power Design. It concluded that the governing federal labor statutes applied to the project and that those statutes did not provide a private right of action. Based on that conclusion, the court determined that the workers could not seek relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and entered judgment in favor of Power Design.
The workers appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The central issue on appeal was whether the Fair Labor Standards Act could apply to workers on a federally funded construction project that was also subject to the Davis-Bacon Act and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.
The appellate court reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. It examined whether the overlapping federal labor statutes conflicted with one another or whether they could apply concurrently.
The court reviewed the purposes and structures of the three statutes. The Davis-Bacon Act required payment of prevailing wages on certain federally funded construction projects. The Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act imposed overtime requirements on covered federal contracts. Neither statute provided a private right of action, relying instead on administrative enforcement by the Department of Labor.
The Fair Labor Standards Act served a broader purpose. It established nationwide minimum wage and overtime standards and expressly authorized employees to bring private lawsuits to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation.
The court explained that the absence of a private right of action under the Davis-Bacon Act and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act did not create a conflict with the Fair Labor Standards Act. The statutes regulated different aspects of employment and contained provisions anticipating concurrent application with other federal labor laws.
The court relied on prior Supreme Court and appellate decisions addressing the interaction between the Fair Labor Standards Act and other federal labor statutes governing government contracts. Those cases recognized that the Fair Labor Standards Act was intended to apply broadly, even when other federal statutes also regulated wages or hours on specific types of contracts.
The court noted that Congress was aware that federal labor statutes would overlap and that contractors could be subject to multiple wage and hour requirements. The relevant statutory language and legislative history reflected an intent to apply the higher wage or overtime requirement where statutes overlapped, rather than to displace the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Power Design asserted that allowing Fair Labor Standards Act claims would create conflicts in calculating overtime, particularly where prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits were involved. The court rejected that position. It explained that existing statutes and regulations addressed how overtime should be calculated when the Davis-Bacon Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act applied concurrently.
The court determined that potential disputes over the proper calculation of overtime did not bar the workers’ claims at the summary judgment stage. Those issues involved factual development and proof, not statutory incompatibility.
The Court of Appeals held that the Fair Labor Standards Act could apply concurrently with the Davis-Bacon Act and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act. It concluded that the district court erred in determining that the workers were barred from bringing Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
The court vacated the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings on the merits of the workers’ wage and overtime claims.
If you’ve encountered issues involving prevailing wage requirements or compliance on federally funded construction projects, Whitcomb Selinsky PC handles matters involving the Davis-Bacon Act. Reach out to our team to schedule a consultation and learn how our team can assist with your situation.