U.S. Code » Title 40 » Subtitle SUBTITLE II— PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS › Part PART A— GENERAL › Chapter CHAPTER 31— GENERAL › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IV— WAGE RATE REQUIREMENTS

40 U.S.C. § 3145

Regulations governing contractors and subcontractors

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 40 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—The Secretary of Labor shall prescribe reasonable regulations for contractors and subcontractors engaged in constructing, carrying out, completing, or repairing public buildings, public works, or buildings or works that at least partly are financed by a loan or grant from the Federal Government. The regulations shall include a provision that each contractor and subcontractor each week must furnish a statement on the wages paid each employee during the prior week.(b)Application.—Section 1001 of title 18 applies to the statements.(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1152.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised

Section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

3145(a)

40:276c (1st sentence).

June 13, 1934, ch. 482, § 2, 48 Stat. 948; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 134, 63 Stat. 108; Pub. L. 85–800, § 12, Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 967.

3145(b)

40:276c (last sentence).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2008–2023 · leading case: United States v. Juan Carlos Bazantes, 978 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Juan Carlos Bazantes, 978 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2020). · cites it 10× “§ 874 and 40 U.S.C. § 3145 ). In that way it complements the Davis-Bacon Act.”
Cnty. of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc., 588 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2008). “Exercising his authority under 40 U.S.C. § 3145 to “prescribe reasonable regulations for contractors” subject to the Davis-Bacon Act, the Secretary of Labor established an administrative remedial scheme.”
United States Ex Rel. Wall v. Circle C Constr., L.L.C., 697 F.3d 345 (6th Cir. 2012). “40 U.S.C. § 3145 (a); 29 C.F.R. § 5.5 (a)(3)(ii)(A), (a)(6); Nat’l Fire Ins.”
United States v. Javier Estepa, 998 F.3d 898 (11th Cir. 2021). “See 40 U.S.C. § 3145 (a); 29 C.F.R. § 3.4 (b).”
Chavira v. Quarry Hills Mgmt., LLC, 458 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. App. 2014). “40 U.S.C. § 3145 (a) (2014). The original petition sought a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction requiring EPPS to turn over certified payroll forms for three projects identified as “IBCT2- *563 POV (Contract # W912HY-09-D-0004), BCT-3-CAB-P0V (Contract No…”
United States Ex Rel. Wall v. Circle Constr., LLC, 700 F. Supp. 2d 926 (M.D. Tenn. 2010). “40 U.S.C. § 3145 ; 29 C.F.R. § 5.5 (a)(3)(I) and (ii)(A)(B).”
Cnty. of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc., 540 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2008). “Exercising his authority under 40 U.S.C. § 3145 to “prescribe reasonable regulations for contractors” subject to the Davis-Bacon Act, the Secretary of Labor established an administrative remedial scheme.”
Heartland Constr. Grp., LLC v. Hous. Auth. of South Bend (N.D. Ind. 2023). · cites it 2× “HASB has not yet paid Heartland. Heartland sued HASB for breaching their contract and for unjust enrichment.”
Star Operations, Inc. & Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York v. Dig Tech, Inc. (Tex. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “R.li 5.5{a)(3)(i) requitu ccrtlraclors to submilwoekly a copy of aDpayrOlls to the Federal agency conllacllng lor or ranancinglho conalrucllon projec~ acccmponled by a signed •storomenl D( Complloncn• lndlcafing thallhe payrols aro correet and complete and !hoi each labcRr20 C.”
United States v. Document Reprocessors of New York, Inc. (W.D.N.Y. 2023). “at ¶ 29); see also 40 U.S.C. § 3145 (a). DRNY had a successful year in 2012, “largely owing to the Hurricane Sandy disaster that struck Jersey City, NJ particularly hard, causing major flooding of government offices.”
Cnty. of Santa Clara V.astra USA, Inc. (9th Cir. 2008). “Exercising his authority under 40 U.S.C. § 3145 to “prescribe reasonable regulations for con- tractors” subject to the Davis-Bacon Act, the Secretary of 16 This is a different and less demanding inquiry than that used to evalu- ate whether a federal statute preempts a state-law…”
Cnty. of Santa Clar v. Astra USA, Inc. (9th Cir. 2009). “not less than the wages prevailing in the locality of the Project, as pre- determined by the Secretary of Labor of the United States.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.