Where a plaintiff who worked on a project to restore commuter rail service between Boston and southeastern Massachusetts filed a complaint alleging that the defendant railroad company paid him less than the prevailing wage, a judge’s decision to deny the employer’s motion to dismiss should be affirmed, as the Prevailing Wage Act is not preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act.
“The Prevailing Wage Act, G.L.c. 149, §§26-27H (Prevailing Wage Act, or Act), evinces the Legislature’s intent that laborers performing work in the Commonwealth on the Commonwealth’s public works projects are paid a fair wage as determined by the Commonwealth based on prevailing market conditions (prevailing wage). The Act is designed to avoid rewarding a contractor that submits an artificially low bid on public works projects by paying its employees less than the prevailing wage. It embodies the Commonwealth’s policy to dedicate public funds to the payment of wages consistent with market conditions to employees on public works projects.
“In the present case, the plaintiff, Chad Marsh, alleges that the defendant Massachusetts Coastal Railroad LLC (MCR) paid him less than the prevailing wage on State public works projects, including a project to restore commuter rail service between Boston and southeastern Massachusetts (South Coast Rail project). On appeal from the denial of their motion to dismiss, MCR, a railroad company, and its managing officer, the defendant P. Chris...
Actor-politician Ravi Kishan has filed a first information report (FIR) against an individual for allegedly making false and defamatory statements aimed at damaging his public image and reputation...