Ramos v. SimplexGrinnell LP
Docket: No. 12-4901-cv
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; December 3, 2014; Federal Appellate Court
Plaintiffs-Appellants are appealing portions of a June 21, 2011 order from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees SimplexGrinnell LP and others regarding breach of contract claims for unpaid prevailing wages related to testing and inspection work. The Second Circuit previously certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals: whether courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute from an unrelated proceeding and whether contracts under New York Labor Law (NYLL) must specify the work for which prevailing wages are owed when the statute’s coverage is unclear. The New York Court of Appeals addressed these questions, stating that it would not grant more deference to the agency than it claims for itself, and clarified that an agreement to comply with statutes includes compliance with the correct interpretation, regardless of the parties’ knowledge at contracting. The Court held that the New York Department of Labor (NYDOL) had renounced its claim to deference regarding the prospective application of its interpretation that testing and inspection work falls under NYLL section 220. It affirmed that such work is covered by NYLL section 220 and that prevailing wages were required to be paid. Although the correct interpretation was unclear at the time of the contracts, compliance was still mandated. Plaintiffs requested that the court decide damages themselves, proposing an award of $13,086,761 based on an expert report, which they argue is admissible. However, while the Defendants cannot challenge the expert’s report's reliability, they may contest its conclusions. The district court noted inconsistencies in the expert's report, indicating that there are still material issues of fact regarding damages. As a result, the appellate court vacated part of the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, indicating that the issue of damages cannot be resolved at this stage. Plaintiffs also suggested remanding with specific direction to award the claimed damages.