In Mariusz Brulinski v. Chateau GC, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190843 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2025), Mariusz Brulinski and Krystian Stolarz filed a putative class action against Chateau GC, LLC, Progressive Maintenance, LLC, and Prestige Employee Administrators, LLC. The case arose from a dispute over wages paid for construction work performed on publicly funded projects in Brooklyn, New York.
Brulinski and Stolarz worked on several projects, including properties located at 1670 Pacific Street, 572 Warren Street, and 360 Nostrand Avenue. They were hired as flooring installers and received $79.21 per hour. The complaint alleged that this hourly rate was based on an improper worker classification under the Davis-Bacon Act and that proper classification would have resulted in wages between $95 and $104 per hour.
The complaint also invoked the New York State Prevailing Wage Guidelines under Articles 8-A and 9 of the New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs asserted that multiple state-law classifications should have applied based on the duties they performed.
The Davis-Bacon Act requires contractors on federally funded construction projects to pay laborers and mechanics no less than the prevailing wages determined by the United States Department of Labor. The statute is enforced administratively by federal agencies and the Department of Labor rather than through a private right of action.
The complaint alleged that the defendants were subject to the Davis-Bacon Act for certain or all project worksites. The court noted that the projects were described as federally funded, including Section 8 housing projects. The defendants submitted contracts identifying the projects as federally funded and subject to Davis-Bacon requirements.
The plaintiffs asserted three federal claims: (1) under the Fair Labor Standards Act for alleged underpayment of wages; (2) under the False Claims Act; and (3) for declaratory relief. They also brought state-law claims for breach of contract, third-party beneficiary status under state prevailing wage contracts, unpaid wages under the New York Labor Law, and quantum meruit.
The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
The court examined the Fair Labor Standards Act claim first. The complaint cited numerous statutory provisions but primarily alleged a violation of the FLSA’s minimum wage requirement.
The court determined that the FLSA claim could not proceed to the extent it was based on alleged misclassification under the Davis-Bacon Act. The Davis-Bacon Act does not provide a private right of action and is enforced administratively. The court relied on precedent holding that plaintiffs may not use the FLSA to circumvent the Davis-Bacon Act’s administrative enforcement scheme.
The court further concluded that the FLSA minimum wage provision establishes a fixed federal minimum wage and does not incorporate prevailing wage standards. Because the plaintiffs did not allege that they were paid below the federal minimum wage, but instead alleged underpayment relative to prevailing wage classifications, the FLSA claim failed.
To the extent the plaintiffs attempted to base their FLSA claim on New York prevailing wage requirements, the court found that the complaint did not plausibly allege that state prevailing wage law governed the contracts at issue. The complaint described the projects as publicly financed and referenced federal funding, including Section 8 housing. The court concluded that the federal prevailing wage framework applied and dismissed the FLSA claim.
The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants violated the False Claims Act by submitting false certified payrolls and certificates of compliance related to Davis-Bacon obligations.
The court held that the claim failed for two independent reasons. First, the plaintiffs did not comply with the False Claims Act’s procedural requirements for qui tam actions. They did not file the complaint under seal or serve it on the government before serving the defendants. The court determined that failure to comply with these statutory requirements warranted dismissal with prejudice.
Second, the court concluded that the complaint did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires fraud claims to be pleaded with particularity. The complaint did not identify specific false statements, the speaker, when or where statements were made, or why they were false.
The court also noted that disputes regarding proper worker classification under the Davis-Bacon Act fall within the primary jurisdiction of the Department of Labor, reinforcing dismissal of the False Claims Act claim.
The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the alleged practices were unlawful under federal and state law. The court determined that the declaratory judgment claim was duplicative of the substantive claims and dismissed it.
Because all federal claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the motion to dismiss. The False Claims Act claim was dismissed with prejudice. The remaining federal claims were dismissed without prejudice. The state-law claims were also dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment and close the case.
If your business performs work on federally funded construction projects and faces questions about prevailing wage compliance, worker classifications, or Davis-Bacon Act obligations, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC handles matters involving federal government contracting and Davis-Bacon Act compliance. Contact us to discuss your situation with our team.