EEOC Focuses on Eliminating Harassment, Recruitment and Hiring Barriers in the Construction Industry
September 09, 2024 —
Aaron C. Schlesinger & Stephen E. Irving - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), whose mission is to enforce the nation’s anti-discrimination laws, released new guidelines on June 18, 2024, entitled
Promising Practices for Preventing Harassment in the Construction Industry. The guidelines are in support of its Strategic Enforcement Plan for the fiscal years 2024-2028 for combatting systemic harassment and eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring in the construction industry. With these guidelines, the EEOC has identified harassment as an ongoing issue in the construction industry, and that immediate attention and resolution is required.
The EEOC specifically recommends that the following five core principles that it has found effective in preventing and addressing harassment be implemented by construction industry employers:
- Committed and engaged leadership;
- Consistent and demonstrated accountability;
- Strong and comprehensive harassment policies;
- Trusted and accessible complaint procedures; and
- Regular, interactive training tailored to the audience and the organization.
Reprinted courtesy of
Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Stephen E. Irving, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Mr. Irving may be contacted at sirving@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Privette: The “Affirmative Contribution” Exception, How Far Does It Go?
August 10, 2020 —
Courtney Arbucci, Peter A. Dubrawski & Austin F. Smith - Haight Brown & BonesteelIn Horne v. Ahern Rentals, Inc. (No. B299605, filed 6/10/2020 ord. publ. 6/10/2020), Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action against Defendant Ahern Rentals, Inc. (“Ahern”) arising out of the fatal incident involving Ruben Dickerson (“decedent”), while employed by independent contractor 24-Hour Tire Service, Inc. Decedent was ultimately crushed on Ahern Rentals, Inc.’s property when a forklift that was improperly placed on uneven ground collapsed as decedent laid under the raised forklift as he performed tire maintenance.
Plaintiffs’ suit would normally be barred by the Privette line of decisions which arise out of the foundational principle that an independent contractor’s hirer presumptively delegates to the contractor its tort law duty to provide a safe workplace for the contractor’s employees. (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 (Privette).) The Privette rule is subject to a number of exceptions including the “peculiar risk” exception, the “nondelegable duty” exception and the “affirmative contribution” exception. (See Privette, supra.) Here, Plaintiffs’ claimed that their suit against Ahern arose out of the “affirmative contribution” exception to Privette as defined by Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 202 (Hooker). Hooker allows suits otherwise barred by Privette to go forward if the hirer of the independent contractor “exercised control over safety conditions at the worksite in a way that affirmatively contributed to the employee’s injuries.”
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys
Courtney Arbucci,
Peter A. Dubrawski and
Austin F. Smith
Ms. Arbucci may be contacted at carbucci@hbblaw.com
Mr. Dubrawski may be contacted at pdubrawski@hbblaw.com
Mr. Smith may be contacted at asmith@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Timely and Properly Assert Affirmative Defenses and Understand Statutory Conditions Precedent
August 05, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent case serves as a reminder to TIMELY and PROPERLY assert affirmative defenses and to understand statutory conditions precedent to construction lien claims. Failing to do one or the other could be severely detrimental to the position you want to take in a dispute, whether it is a lien foreclosure dispute, or any other dispute.
In Scherf v. Tom Krips Construction, Inc., 2024 WL 3297592 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024), the president of a construction company and his wife were building a residence. They orally accepted the proposal from the concrete shell contractor and asked for invoices to be submitted to the president’s construction company. No written contract was memorialized. The president and his wife did not pay the concrete shell contractor and the contractor recorded a lien and sued to foreclose on the lien. Years later (the case had been stayed because the president and his wife filed for bankruptcy and the shell contractor had to get leave of the automatic bankruptcy stay to pursue the lien foreclosure), the shell contractor moved for summary judgment. The president and his wife moved for leave to file an amended answer and affirmative defenses. They claimed the oral contract was with the construction company and the shell contractor was required to serve a Notice to Owner under
Florida Statute s. 713.06. Alternatively, they argued that if the oral contract was with the president and his wife, the shell contractor was required to serve a Final Contractor’s Payment Affidavit at least 5 days before filing its lien foreclosure claim, and did not, as required by s. 713.06.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Safety Data: Noon Presents the Hour of Greatest Danger
April 20, 2017 —
Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordUnlike previous research into construction fatalities, a new review of three years of Labor Dept. data found that most occur between 10 am and 3 pm, with a peak at noon.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, ENRMr. Korman may be contacted at
kormanr@enr.com
July 1, 2015 Statutory Changes Affecting Virginia Contractors and Subcontractors
June 10, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsAs always seems to be the case, this year, as in others, the Virginia General Assembly has seen fit to “tweak” a few construction related statutes. All of these changes will go into effect on July 1, 2015.
The big one, and one that I posted about a while back is the change to the Virginia mechanic’s lien statute to prohibit contractual waiver of lien, payment bond or claims for additional costs prior to the furnishing of labor or materials. This one is big because it relieves a bit of the angst in the pre-contract negotiations between subcontractors and general contractors.
Another significant change, this one to the wording of Virginia Code 2.2-4309, found in House Bill 1628, clarifies the fact that this Virginia statute does not limit the amount a government contractor may claim or recover against a public body under a contract dispute. This is a big one considering the ruling in the Carnell Construction Corp. v. Danville Redevelopment Housing Authority LLC limiting such claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Proposed Law Protecting Tenants Amended: AB 828 Updated
June 08, 2020 —
Rhonda Kreger – Newmeyer DillionOn May 18, 2020, AB 828 was amended and is currently on its second reading in the Senate Rules Committee. This legislation proposes a temporary moratorium on foreclosures and unlawful detainers while Governor Newsom's COVID-19 emergency order is in effect. In addition to the moratorium, AB 828 also required landlords to reduce rent by 25% under certain circumstances. AB 828 was amended to remove the provision that required landlords to reduce rent by 25% for 12 months. The new provision requires landlords to allow tenant to remain in possession, and requires tenants to start paying rent the month following the end of the emergency order. Tenants must timely pay monthly rent plus 10% of any rent due and owing when the emergency order ended.
Under AB 828, a tenant may stipulate to the entry of an order in response to a residential unlawful detainer action filed by the landlord. Upon a hearing, the court determines if the tenant's inability to pay rent is the result of increased expenses or a reduction in income due to COVID-19. The court must also make a determination that there is no material economic hardship for the landlord. Upon making such determinations, the court will issue an order that permits the tenant to remain in possession, and requires tenant to commence rental payments the month following the end of the COVID-19 emergency order. Tenant's payment would include the monthly rent plus 10% of an unpaid rent during the COVID-19 emergency order, but excludes any late charges or other fees or charges. The tenant would be required to make timely payments, and if tenant fails to do so, after a 48 hour notice from landlord, the landlord can file for an immediate writ of possession in favor of the landlord and money judgment for any unpaid balance, court costs and attorneys' fees.
Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at NDcovid19response@ndlf.com or visit us at www.newmeyerdillion.com/covid-19-multidisciplinary-task-force/.
Rhonda Kreger is Senior Counsel on Newmeyer Dillion's transactional team at our Newport Beach office. Her practice focuses on all aspects of commercial real estate law, with a particular emphasis on the representation of residential developers, merchant builders and institutional investors. You can reach Rhonda at rhonda.kreger@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Quick Note: Mitigation of Damages in Contract Cases
October 02, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn an earlier article, I discussed an owner’s measure of damages when a contractor breaches the construction contract. This article discussed a case where the contractor elected to walk off a residential renovation job due to a payment dispute when he demanded more money and the owners did not bite. This case also discussed the commonly asserted defense known as mitigation of damages, i.e., the other party failed to properly mitigate their own damages.
In the breach of contract setting, mitigation of damages refers to those damages the other side could have reasonably avoided had he undertaken certain (reasonable) measures. This is known as the doctrine of avoidable consequences.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Less Than Valiant Effort”
June 21, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyA Miller Act claimant in federal court in New Jersey in relation to a VA medical center project found itself on the wrong end of the law and was sent packing by the court.
The claimant had supplied products for the project to general contractor Valiant Group, LLC, pursuant to a purchase order from the GC. The general contractor allegedly refused to pay the supplier, leading to the claim against the GC and its payment bond surety in the amount of $126,900. The supplier also sought recovery under the federal Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3901-07. State law claims were asserted as well.
Chipping away at the federal law claims – the claims forming the asserted basis for federal court jurisdiction for the case – the court first dispensed with the Prompt Payment Act claim. According to the court, allegations that the general contractor had “wrongfully and improperly withheld remuneration… despite [having] ‘received payment from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’" – whether or not accurate – did not trigger the Act. The court wrote:
“The Prompt Payment Act was enacted ‘to provide the federal government with an incentive to pay government contractors on time by requiring agencies to pay penalties . . . on certain overdue bills . . . [and] was later amended to include provisions applicable to subcontractors.’… Absent from the Act, however, are ‘any explicit provisions for subcontractor enforcement if the prime contractor fails to make timely payment.’… This is because the Act ‘merely requires that the prime contractor's contract with the subcontractor include the specified payment clause. [It] does not require the prime contractor to actually make payments to the subcontractor[.]’… The Act, therefore, does not ‘give subcontractors an additional cause of action for an alleged breach by a general contractor of a subcontract.’”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
