In February 2007, Plaintiffs filed this class action against SimplexGrinnell LP in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, claiming that SimplexGrinnell failed to pay its employees in accordance with the Prevailing Wage Act, New York Labor Law § 220. On March 07, 2007, SimplexGrinnell moved the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn Division. Chief Magistrate Steven M. Gold is assigned to the case.

Pursuant to the Prevailing Wage Act, New York Labor Law § 220, public works contracts – i.e., contracts with state or local governmental agencies to perform construction, maintenance and repair of public buildings – must provide that all laborers will be paid prevailing wages. Plaintiffs are fifteen current and former employees of Defendant who performed electrical and sprinkler work, including installation, maintenance, inspection, testing, repairs, and replacement of fire alarms and security systems, on various public works projects throughout the state. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant failed to pay the named plaintiffs and the members of the putative class all the prevailing wages due to them for their work on public works projects.

After nearly three years of discovery, Plaintiffs filed motions for class certification and summary judgment on March 18, 2010. Plaintiffs sought the Court to certify a class defined as follows: “[A]ll laborers, workmen and mechanics who furnished labor to SimplexGrinnell on non-federal public works projects in the State of New York at any time from February 6, 2001[, or from July 14, 2001 for sprinkler work] until the final judgment in this matter, and who . . . have not been paid prevailing wages and benefits as required by law.” Plaintiffs sought summary judgment for the class and damages in the total sum of $16 million. On March 25, 2010, Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

On June 21, 2011, in a published Memorandum & Order, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Court expressly held that the Supreme Court's recent Decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes did not warrant a different result. The court also granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment with respect to fire alarm testing and inspection work and Plaintiffs' fifth cause of action. The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

As of this writing the case is ongoing.

Xin Chen - 07/31/2011


compress summary