Legal Opinion

Bergman v. Monarch Construction Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 2010No. 2009-0558 and 2009-0649Published

1DissentLundberg Stratton, J.

{¶ 20} Because I believe that the 25 percent penalty set forth in R.C. 4115.10(A) is discretionary in an employee-initiated action to enforce the prevailing-wage law and that the employee is not entitled to recover the 75 percent penalty that is intended for the director of commerce, I respectfully dissent.

{¶ 21} The plaintiffs filed this action to recover unpaid prevailing wages from their employer, Don Salyers Masonry, Inc. (“Salyers”), for work performed on a public-improvement project at Miami University. Salyers was a subcontractor hired by Monarch Construction Company, the general…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy DistrictOhio Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Bergman v. Monarch Constr. Co., Ca2008-02-044 (2-9-2009)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API