On public construction projects covered by prevailing wage regulations—municipal, state, and federal—contractors are bound by official rates established for each construction trade. Paying below these rates, registering an employee under a lower-paid trade, and demanding the return of a portion of the wages are violations that workers can claim compensation for.
School renovations, hospital work, or municipal road projects look just like any other job from a worker’s perspective, with the same scaffolding, hours, and boss. The difference lies in the contract, because a contractor on a project covered by prevailing wage regulations must pay officially set rates, rather than whatever they consider to be market rates.
Public money, private savings
Large public investments employ dozens of subcontractors, including companies and crews from Maspeth, Ridgewood, or New Jersey. The further down the subcontractor chain, the more often workers have no idea that their construction site is subject to prevailing wage regulations. The boss says “it’s just a regular job,” and project documents are never shown on the site.
The law firm Robert Wisniewski P.C. lists typical violations on public and federal projects on its website. These include failing to pay rates required by the Davis-Bacon Act or other public works regulations, paying below the prevailing wage rate, misclassifying an employee into a lower-paid trade, and demanding that workers share their pay with bosses or supervisors (known as kickbacks).
Sounds familiar? An employee who in practice performs the work of a skilled craftsman is listed on paper as a helper. Someone else hands over a part of their paycheck to the foreman every week “just to keep the job.” Both situations have a legal name.
The Davis-Bacon Act, correct trade, and overtime based on the proper rate
On federal projects, the Davis-Bacon Act is the basis, while state and municipal works have their own wage rate regulations. Requirements for federal construction contracts are outlined by the U.S. Department of Labor. The common mechanism is simple: a specific rate applies to each trade, and the contractor cannot lower it.
Misclassifying a trade hits twice, because it also lowers overtime pay. Among representative cases, the firm mentions Sobczak v. AWL Industries (E.D.N.Y. 2007). According to the firm’s website description, overtime for misclassified workers on prevailing wage projects is calculated based on the base rate to which the employee was contractually entitled.
A related group consists of violations involving union work. The firm lists the performance of work covered by a union agreement by a non-union company without paying union rates, and preventing an employee from joining the union despite working on a union project. Details can be found on the firm’s website regarding wage claims, including prevailing wage.
What this means for Polish construction workers
Above all, it means that whether a project is covered by these regulations depends on the contract, not the boss’s assurances. The firm emphasizes on its website that recovering money is often possible even if the employee was paid in cash, does not have a green card, or gave back part of their wages to keep their job. In such cases, anything that helps identify the project is useful: construction site addresses, general contractor names, photos of informational signs.
Time also matters. In New York State, wage claims cover up to six years from the date the wages should have been paid; under federal law—up to 3 years; in other states, deadlines vary (e.g., in New Jersey since 2019—6 years). Every day payment is delayed may therefore reduce the amount that can still be pursued.
Free consultation in Polish
Robert Wisniewski has been handling cases in state and federal courts for over 30 years. Wage cases, including those concerning prevailing wage rates, are handled by the firm on a contingency fee basis: if money is not recovered, the client does not pay the firm’s fee.
The initial consultation is free, and the conversation can take place in Polish, directly with the attorney. Robert Wisniewski P.C., phone: 212-267-2102.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; reading it does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The material is attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome in the future.
