Skip to main content

McKinley Foundation at the University of Illinois v. Illinois Department of Labor

Ill. App. Ct.September 10, 2010No. 4-09-0512 Rel
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The appellate court reversed the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of McKinley Foundation and held that the Prevailing Wage Act applies to McKinley's construction project because the project was financed with tax-exempt bonds, making it a public work carried out by a public body.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** McKinley Foundation at the University of Illinois was involved in a construction project and disputed whether it had to follow Illinois's Prevailing Wage Act. This law requires that workers on public construction projects be paid prevailing wages (typically higher than minimum wage). McKinley Foundation argued the law didn't apply to their project because they claimed it wasn't truly a "public work." The Illinois Department of Labor disagreed and said the foundation had to follow prevailing wage requirements. **What the Court Decided** The appellate court sided with the Department of Labor. The court ruled that McKinley Foundation's construction project did qualify as a "public work" under the Prevailing Wage Act because the project was financed using tax-exempt bonds. Since taxpayers effectively subsidize these bonds through lost tax revenue, the court determined this made the foundation a "public body" for purposes of this construction project. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling protects construction workers' right to fair wages on projects that receive public financing benefits. It clarifies that even when private organizations like foundations undertake construction projects, workers are still entitled to prevailing wage protections if the project uses any form of public financial support, including tax-exempt bonds.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.