33 U.S.C. § 1372
Labor standards
The Administrator shall take such action as may be necessary to insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors on treatment works for which grants are made under this chapter shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing for the same type of work on similar construction in the immediate locality, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with sections 3141–3144, 3146, and 3147 of title 40. The Secretary of Labor shall have, with respect to the labor standards specified in this subsection,1
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1978–1994 · leading case: United States v. Capeletti Bros., 621 F.2d 1309 (5th Cir. 1980).
United States v. Capeletti Bros., 621 F.2d 1309 (5th Cir. 1980). “4 The court did agree with appellants that the Davis-Bacon Act, by virtue of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1372 , 5 was applicable to the project.”
Kam Shing Chan v. City of New York, 803 F. Supp. 710 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). “Alternatively, Congress could have focused on the government’s responsibility, *724 as it did in 33 U.S.C. § 1372 , which provides: The Administrator [of the Environmental Protection Agency] shall take such action as may be necessary to insure that all laborers and mechanics…”
Bldg. & Constr. Trades Dep't, Afl-Cio v. United States Dep't of Labor Wage Appeals Bd., 932 F.2d 985 (D.C. Cir. 1991). “§ 113 (1968) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1372 (1972). 3 . When Midway appealed to the WAB, it requested that the retained backpay be placed in an interest-bearing account.”
Bldg. & Constr. Trades Dep't v. Donovan, 543 F. Supp. 1282 (D.D.C. 1982). “§ 450e; 33 U.S.C. § 1372 ; and 12 U.S.C. § 1749a(f) where the Congress, unlike here, limited wage applications to “similar construction in the immediate locality” (emphasis added).”
Winzeler Excavating Co. v. Brock, 694 F. Supp. 362 (N.D. Ohio 1988). “The work was federally funded in part through a grant under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1372 (1982), which provides for compliance with statutory labor standards.”
Bldg. & Constr. Trades Dep't, Afl-Cio v. U.S. Dep't of Labor Wage Appeals Bd. Midway Excavators, Inc., 829 F.2d 1186 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1372 , and the Federal-Aid Highway Act, 23 U.”
US for Use & Benefit of Glynn v. Capelletti Bros., 448 F. Supp. 66 (S.D. Fla. 1978). “The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1372 , provides that treatment plants receiving federal grants comply with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act.”
Bldg. & Constr. Trades Dep't v. McLaughlin, 747 F. Supp. 26 (D.D.C. 1990). “§ 113 , and seven were under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1372 . . Section 5.2® of the Labor Department’s "Davis-Baeon and Related Acts Provisions and Procedures,” 29 C.”
Irwin Co., Inc. v. 3525 Sage Street Assocs., Ltd. v. Robert B. Reich, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Sec'y of Labor, Third-Party, 37 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 1994). “The court analyzed the case as a Davis-Bacon Act claim, found that Congress had expressly provided a set of particular remedies under the Davis-Bacon Act, and held that no private cause of action existed under that Act to sue employers.”
Winzeler Excavating Co. v. Brock, 694 F. Supp. 336 (N.D. Ohio 1988). “The work was federally funded in part through a grant under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1372 (1982), which provides for compliance with statutory labor standards.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.