42 U.S.C. § 5310

Labor standards; rate of wages; exceptions; enforcement powers

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors in the performance of construction work financed in whole or in part with assistance received under this chapter shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on similar construction in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with sections 3141–3144, 3146, and 3147 of title 40: Provided, That this section shall apply to the rehabilitation of residential property only if such property contains not less than 8 units. The Secretary of Labor shall have, with respect to such labor standards, the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F.R. 3176; 64 Stat. 1267) and section 3145 of title 40.(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual that—(1) performs services for which the individual volunteered;(2)(A) does not receive compensation for such services; or(B) is paid expenses, reasonable benefits, or a nominal fee for such services; and(3) is not otherwise employed at any time in the construction work.(Pub. L. 93–383, title I, § 110, Aug. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 649; Pub. L. 97–35, title III, § 309(j), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 397; Pub. L. 100–242, title V, § 523, Feb. 5, 1988, 101 Stat. 1939; Pub. L. 101–625, title IX, § 955(a), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4420.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original “this title”, meaning title I of Pub. L. 93–383, Aug. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 633, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of title I to the Code, see Tables.

Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950, referred to in subsec. (a), is set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

Codification

In subsec. (a), “sections 3141–3144, 3146, and 3147 of title 40” substituted for “the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276a—276a–5)” and “section 3145 of title 40” substituted for “section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended (48 Stat. 948; 40 U.S.C. 276(c))”, meaning 276c, on authority of Pub. L. 107–217, § 5(c), Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1303, the first section of which enacted Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works.

Amendments

1990—Pub. L. 101–625 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

1988—Pub. L. 100–242, which directed the substitution of “contains not less than 8 units” for “is designed for residential use of eight or more families”, was executed by making the substitution for “is designed for residential use for eight or more families” as the probable intent of Congress.

1981—Pub. L. 97–35 substituted “assistance” for “grants”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1990 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 101–625 applicable to any volunteer services provided before, on, or after Nov. 28, 1990, except that such amendment may not be construed to require repayment of any wages paid before Nov. 28, 1990, for services provided before such date, see section 955(d) of Pub. L. 101–625, set out as a note under section 1437j of this title.

Effective Date of 1981 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–35 effective Oct. 1, 1981, see section 371 of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3701 of Title 12, Banks and Banking.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases, 1987–2014 · leading case: Kam Shing Chan v. City of New York, 803 F. Supp. 710 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kam Shing Chan v. City of New York, 803 F. Supp. 710 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). · cites it 20× “2 BACKGROUND Kam Shing Chan and the other plaintiffs seek to recover back wages, which they claim are due them under 42 U.S.C. § 5310 and applicable contracts, from CPC and the municipal defendants.”

Favel v. Am. Renovation & Constr. Co., 2002 MT 266 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 2× “3d 96 , 106, to determine that laborers who were to be paid Davis-Bacon wages under § 5310 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. § 5310 (HCDA), could invoke a remedy under 42 U.”

Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2004). “1993) (holding provisions of Section 111 insufficiently comprehensive to preclude Section 1983 enforcement of prevailing wage rights conferred by Section 110, 42 U.S.C. § 5310 ). The City also relies on Suter , in which the Supreme Court observed that a similar administrative…”

Kam Shing Chan v. City of New York, 1 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 1993). · cites it 4× “See 42 U.S.C. § 5310 . The Contracts between CPC and HPD contained certain terms and conditions required by the HCDA.”

Vulcan Arbor Hill Corp. v. Reich, 81 F.3d 1110 (D.C. Cir. 1996). · cites it 4× “One of these Davis-Bacon related provisions, section 110 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. § 5310 , is at the vortex of this dispute.”

Santiago Ex Rel. Muniz v. Hernandez, 53 F. Supp. 2d 264 (E.D.N.Y 1999). “3d at 98 (invoking 42 U.S.C. § 5310 ). 4 . Plaintiffs do not contend that the Apartment was “covered by an application for mortgage insurance” or that their housing received “project-based assistance.”

Grochowski v. Phoenix Constr., 318 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2003). “” 42 U.S.C. § 5310 (a). The contracts at issue in this case between the New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”) and the defendant contractors contained clauses conforming to this requirement, by which the defendants promised that they would pay their workers according to…”

Greater New Orleans Fair Hous. Action Ctr. v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 723 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2010). “1993) (concluding that plaintiffs could bring a section 1983 action for a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 5310 , “the provision for payment of a certain minimum wage” to workers employed with funds from grants under the HCDA, because that provision “confers its principal benefit on the…”

Veal v. Mem'l Hosp. of Washington Cnty., 894 F. Supp. 448 (M.D. Ga. 1995). “2d 423 (1993) ( 42 U.S.C. § 5310 insufficiently comprehensive to infer congressional intent that § 1983 actions were precluded); Board of Educ.”

King v. Town of Hempstead, 161 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “With these general guidelines in mind, we have held that one provision of the HCDA, 42 U.S.C. § 5310 , does create an implied right of action for purposes of a § 1983 suit.”

Janik Paving & Constr., Inc. v. William E. Brock, Iii, as Sec'y of the United States Dep't of Labor, 828 F.2d 84 (2d Cir. 1987). “§ 113 (a); Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5310 , 1440(g). Because both contracts involved federal assistance under statutes prescribing wage standards, Janik also was required to comply with the provisions of CWHSSA, which, in pertinent part,…”

Miree Constr. Corp. v. Elizabeth Dole, Sec'y of United States Dep't of Labor, 930 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1991). “See 42 U.S.C. § 5310 . Thus, we need only discuss whether or not a violation of the Davis-Bacon Act occurred.”

Show all 18 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.