California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, et al. v. Dillingham Construction, N. a., Inc., and Manuel J. Arceo, Dba Sound Systems Media (519 U.S. 316)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided February 18, 1997 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 519 U.S. 316 · 117 S. Ct. 832
- Decided
- February 18, 1997
- Term
- October Term 1996
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Thomas
- Issue area
- Federalism
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. The State of California requires a contractor on a public works project to pay its workers the prevailing wage in the project’s locale. An exception to this requirement permits a contractor to pay a lower wage to workers participating in an approved apprenticeship program. This case presents the question whether the pre-emption provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 829, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq., supersedes California’s prevailing wage law to the extent that the law prohibits payment of an apprentice wage to an apprentice trained in an unapproved program. We conclude that California’s law does not “relate to” employee benefit plans, and thus is not pre-empted. I A Since 1931, the Davis-Bacon Act, 46 Stat. 1494, as amended, 40 U. S. C. §§ 276a to 276a-5, has required that the wages paid on federal public works projects equal wages paid in the project’s locale on similar, private construction jobs. California, in 1937, adopted a similar statute, which requires contractors who are awarded public works projects to pay their workers “not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed.” Cal. Lab. Code Ann. § 1771 (West 1989). Under both the Davis-Bacon Act and California’s…
Excerpt of a 32,497-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.